To了 or not to 了?

[coobit]

I'm chinese learner and as everybody else I'm puzzeled by verbal aspect 了. My research into the subject gave such results:

1. 了 belongs to a class of perfective aspect markers just as many other markers 过, verb duplication, RVC (verb resulative aspect) ect.

2. 了 is a existential(aka factual, aka actualizing, aka reallity) aspect marker. In other words 了 marks what really happend or 100% going to happen. That's why you can't negate it with 没

So the classical test for comprehension would be to translate folowing phrases:

1. 我吃饭. (I'm eating). No questions here.

2. *我吃完饭. (Unacceptable?? The idea here is to tell that "I completed eating process but it is not real in some sence." Looks like this is a part of a bigger sentence in future tense. IMHO)

3. 我吃饭了. ("Now I eat!" or "I will eat now!"). no questions here.

4. 我吃完饭了. "Now I've eaten and completed the "meal eating" i.e. the plate is empty!" I can't feel much difference between this sentence and ( .

5. *我吃了饭. (Uncompleted sentence. "I ate."). So here stated that food eating took place, no result of it is mentioned. But native spekers say that the sentence is not complete and something missing. Why???? Can any body explaine it to me?

6. 我吃了饭了. (I WAS eating, you know! Don't give me another plate!) negation: 但是没吃完 (negation is acceptable since it's negation of 完 and not of 了 (we do not negate that food eating took place, we negate that it was completed)

7. 我吃完了饭. I have eaten and completed the task. Just a fact with now connection to anything. negation: *但是没吃完 (unacceptable) since I just stated that 完 was actualized(了)

8. 我吃完了饭了. (I have eaten and completed the task by now.)

P.S. By the way: as 我吃了饭 is not complete to most chinese natives BUT 他当了兵 is absolutly complete. The difference here, I guess, is inside 吃 (stative) and 当(resultive) verbs. Any comments on that?

P.S.S. And comments on the difference between 4 and 8 sentence would be much appreciated.!

[Guest realmayo]

我吃了饭. (Uncompleted sentence. "I ate."). So here stated that food eating took place, no result of it is mentioned. But native spekers say that the sentence is not complete and something missing. Why???? Can any body explaine it to me?

 

 

I've been told that Chinese verbs are 'weaker' than English ones. That is, English verbs (and presumably those from some other languages too) can carry plenty of meaning and significance on their own. They don't need any extra help or context. But Chinese ones can't easily support a whole sentence on their own. The listener will think "so what?" or "what's your point?", "why are you telling me this?" without some additional guidance.

 

So 我吃了饭 would be fine in a list of activities, say, that you've done today. But just sitting there on its own as a single statement -- no, it doesn't work well in Chinese. Some context is indeed missing.

 

 

Then compare that to 我吃饭了 with the 了 coming after the verb and object, not between them. If someone asks 吃饭了吗? the natural answer could be 吃饭了. It's been explained to me that putting the 了 afterwards brings the idea of 'expectation' into play:

 

1. Verb + 了 + Object = flat statement; no reference to 'expectation'.

2. Verb + Object + 了 = reference to expectation. Either (a) something outside your expectations happened or (b) something you were expecting happened

 

1. 中国攻打了日本。 Something you might read stated in a history book*.

2. 中国攻打日本了！ (a) my goodness look what's happened! or (b) aha so it's finally happened!

 

 

*hopefully not

[mandel1luke]

For many native Chinese speakers the "ear" alone will determine what sounds idiomatic. (Many I believe won't even know what's "perfective aspect markers" or "existential aspect marker.")

 

By what I'm used to hearing:

 

1) 我吃饭。  (declaration: "I'm eating" to the question: 你在做什么？) It sounds clearer as 我在吃饭。 （“I am eating now.")

2) 我吃完饭... (incomplete sentence)... you could say 我吃完饭、洗完澡后，便上床睡觉。

3) 我吃饭了。 or 我吃饭了... (“I have eaten". Common answer to the question: 你吃饭了吗？ OR as a declaration: "I'm going to start eating now...")

4) 我吃完饭了。 (In meaning, no different from 3 part 1. Common answer to the question: 你吃完饭了吗？ OR  as a declaration: "I have completed the task of eating a meal.")

5) 我吃了饭... (incomplete sentence as of 2. To me no difference in meaning from 2. You could say 我吃了饭、洗了澡，便上床睡觉。)
6) 我吃了饭了。 (Again, to me no different from 3. “I have eaten". Another answer to the question: 你吃饭了吗？ or 你吃了饭了吗？) 

7) 我吃完了饭... (again, this sounds to me like an unfinished sentence. You could say 我吃完了饭、洗完了澡，便上床睡觉。)

8 ) 我吃完了饭了。 (Declaration: "I have completed the task of eating a meal." But again the structure sounds just a little awkward. It sounds better as 4.)

 

In short, if you place a 了 at the end, it adds finality to the statement/task. Without it the sentences sound incomplete to me.

(了 also has many other grammatical functions - see above.)

 

他当了兵 can be complete or incomplete. It may be an answer to 他（上）哪儿去了？ or 他干嘛去了？ or 他干什么去了？ But such short sentences in Chinese can sound vague, so it's better to understand the context and phrase your answer accordingly with less ambiguity. In putonghua, you can say 他当兵去了。

 

Hope this helps.

[Guest realmayo]

Actually the more I think about it, it's probably not possible to tease out much grammar from the 吃饭 examples because the 'meaning' gets in the way: that is, half of the examples that sound wierd probably do so not because the grammar is off but because things like "I ate a meal" is just a rather odd thing to say full stop, unless there's some supporting context.

 

The 了 examples and comparisons are probably better done with fuller, more normal sentences, like the 中国攻打日本 one for instance.

[davoosh]

I agree with realmayo and I think it might be helpful if we consider that 飯 is a 'dummy object' in 吃飯, whereas in 當兵，兵 is more of a 'true' object.

 

If we consider these two sentences, we can see that even in English the use of a perfective without an object sounds a bit odd:

 

What did you do yesterday?

I ate. (我吃了飯）(Even in English, just saying “I ate" isn't very natural.)

I ate an apple (我吃了一個蘋果） (This on the other hand, sounds like a normal response in both English and Chinese.)

 

In the second sentence, I believe this is an acceptable sentence by itself because the emphasis is on the object, which is a true object, as opposed to the 'dummy objec't 飯.

 

I've read that if the verb is 'bounded' by some sort of object, 了 is usually acceptable straight after the verb. As 飯 in 吃飯 does not really serve to 'bind' the verb to any concrete object (as it is a dummy object which doesn't carry much weight), sentences such as 吃了飯 sound unfinished. Whereas a sentence such as “今天我只吃了兩頓飯” are more acceptable.

 

Li & Thompson give this useful example:

 

他寫錯了那個字

他寫錯那個字了

 

What is the difference between the two?

 

In the first one, as 了 is placed directly after the verb, the 'bounded object' is the focus of the sentence - i.e. He wrote that character wrong.

The second sentences puts the focus on the verb, i.e. He wrote that character wrong (which character is unimportant to the speaker).

 

I find 了 is very, very context specific, but it certainly does follow it's own 'internal logic' (before we get a native speaker saying you can use it however you like and be fine).

[mandel1luke]

 

Li & Thompson give this useful example:

 

他寫錯了那個字

他寫錯那個字了

 

What is the difference between the two?

 

In the first one, as 了 is placed directly after the verb, the 'bounded object' is the focus of the sentence - i.e. He wrote that character wrong.

The second sentences puts the focus on the verb, i.e. He wrote that character wrong (which character is unimportant to the speaker).

 

The Li & Thompson explanation is spot-on. Couldn't have put it better myself.

 

As for 了 placed at the end of a verb and noun, it's usually to denote a person making a declaration and/or imparting a new piece of information to a second party.

 

* 朝鲜攻打日本了！(Look, I've making a statement you're unlikely to know: "North Korea is attacking Japan!")

我爱死你了！ (I love you to bits!)

 

Not too sure about the "expectation" part. Another example?

 

了 has many other functions as an aspect marker, but I'm not well versed enough in Chinese grammar to clarify its uses.

 

*I think this is more likely to happen.

[Kamille]

* 朝鲜攻打日本了！

 

Does the star mean that this sentence is wrong to you? Because it's not. 朝鲜攻打日本了 is perfectly valid and yes, it brings up a new piece of information in the conversation. 

[mandel1luke]

The Chinese-English dictionary A New Century Chinese-English Dictionary indicates four functions for 了：

 

1) [used after a verb or adjective to indicate the completion of an action, at a point in the past or before the beginning of another action.]（E.g. 等雨停了再走。） 

2) [used at the end of a sentence to indicate a change of situation or state.] (天快亮了。）

3) [used at the end of or in the middle of a sentence to indicate a persuasion or request.] （该走了。）

4) [used at the end or in the middle of a sentence to express an exclamation.] （太好了！）

[davoosh]

Aspect-marker 了 and sentence-final particle 了 are believed to have two different origins according to some scholars.

Aspect-marker 了 comes directly after the verb and sentence-final 了 comes at the end of a sentence (obviously).

 

I believe 'aspect 了' is used more or less only to mark aspect, but it gets confusing for English speakers as we tend to conflate tense & aspect.

Sentence final 了 seems to have a wider range of uses.

 

I think sentence-final 了 tends to be used to highlight new information (new to the conversation, as well as new in general) as well as a more involved emotional response to the situation.

 

Li & Thompson give another good example of sentence-final 了 (not to be confused with aspect-了):

他太自私

他太自私了

 

The first one, without 了 is a neutral statement of personality i.e. "He's too selfish (in general, as a person)".

The second, implies "He's being too selfish", possibly said in reply to some behaviour/comment the 'selfish person' has just made.

 

In your example:

我愛死你 vs 我愛死你了

 

As this type of sentence is already quite 'emotionally' loaded, it is more usual with 了 given the situations somebody is likely to say this sentence. For example, if your partner does something very nice for you, you might say 我愛死你了！ Without 了, I believe it comes across as a statement of 'fact'.

 

朝鮮攻打日本了 is a valid sentence. The 了 implies the information is new or noteworthy, it's not so much about expectation.

 

Oh the mysteries of 了...

[mandel1luke]

 

Does the star mean that this sentence is wrong to you? Because it's not. 朝鲜攻打日本了 is perfectly valid and yes, it brings up a new piece of information in the conversation. 

 

The statement is perfectly valid in a grammatical sense. I added an asterisk because I think North Korea is more likely to attack Japan than China would.

 

Meant as a joke...

 

I think sentence-final 了 tends to be used to highlight new-information as well as a more involved emotional response to the situation.

 

Yes, I agree with this too and very succinctly worded.

[Guest realmayo]

Here's a difficulty with pushing the "new information" line as a reason for having 了 after the verb + object. Say my history book begins a chapter: 2018年朝鲜攻打了日本。 This is new information. But the 了 is not after the verb + object.

 

That's why I quite like the "expectation" explanation for 了-at-the-end:

 

朝鲜攻打日本了！(Look, I've making a statement you're unlikely to know: "North Korea is attacking Japan!")

 

 

Fine, you've woken me up with this news. It was outside my expectations.

 

But: you'd say the same thing when satisfying expectations:

 

A: I'm going to sleep. Wake me in the morning. By the way, I'm told North Korea will attack the Japanese at 1am.

 

... several hours later...

 

A: Was I right about North Korea?

B: Yes, 朝鲜攻打日本了。

 

Or: everyone's been predicting an attack for ages. It comes as no surprise. It would still be: 朝鲜攻打日本了。

 

 

If the 了 was in the middle, I think it would sound peculiar in that context. Right?

[davoosh]

From what Li & Thompson say (I know I keep referencing them, but it's a very good book!), it doesn't seem so much about 'actual' new information, but rather that the information is new and relevant to the conversation/situation at hand, so I can kind of get the expectation thing.

 

A textbook would be unlikely to use sentence final 了 in this case, because the context for sentence-final 了 often involves an emotional and context-based response (which is why it appears a lot more frequently in colloquial language).

 

If 了 was in the middle (朝鮮打了日本了！), I think this would put the focus of the sentence onto Japan, i.e. North Korea has attacked Japan! (as opposed to another country).

 

Sentence-final 了 can also include a change of state, or new state, which I think also fits this 朝鮮攻打日本了sentence.

I think it's easier to separate sentence-final 了 and aspect-了 as two separate things which happen to share the same pronunciation (although there is occasional overlap).

[mandel1luke]

 

 2018年朝鲜攻打了日本。 This is new information. But the 了 is not after the verb + object.

 

 

Hi realmayo

 

As davoosh has explained, the aspect 了 used here isn't the same as the end-sentence 了. They have different functions.

 

[used after a verb or adjective to indicate the completion of an action, at a point in the past or before the beginning of another action.]（Aspect 了）

 

 

 

A: Was I right about North Korea?

B: Yes, 朝鲜攻打日本了。

 

I get your point. But I personally see this as a statement of declaration, in the sense of "OK, you're right and I hence make this statement admitting you are right: North Korea has indeed attacked Japan."

 

But then in admitting someone else is right some form of expectation is intended, so you may not be wrong after all...

 

P.S. The explanation in davoosh's last post is also a possibility.

Edited September 23, 2015 at 05:40 PM by mandel1luke

[Guest realmayo]

2018年朝鲜攻打了日本。 This is new information. But the 了 is not after the verb + object.

 

Hi realmayo

 

As davoosh has explained, the aspect 了 used here isn't the same as the end-sentence 了. They have different functions.

 

 

 

I understand, but it's an instance of "new information" where there's no 了 at the end. (I should have written previously: but there's no 了 after the verb + object). So what I meant was, I don't think just "new information" is a strong enough explanation.

 

 

On a separate note:

 

I'm telling a story. It starts with me watching TV at night. I heard a creepy noise outside. I got out of my chair. I opened the door.

 

1. 我打开了门。

2. 我打开门了！

 

I think it's fair to say that:

 

1. This is just the next step in the story.

2. This is a big moment in the story.

 

Right?

[davoosh]

I agree in the sequence of the story, number 1 (我打開了門) shows the next step. I think the second sentence can have a range of 'interpretations' because of the multi-functional 了. It could be interpreted as "and now I'm going to open the door!", or "I've opened the door!" (with the emphasis on the whole action and its current relevance/newness, rather than sequence of events, or the door itself).

 

I think it's more accurate to describe 'new information' as 'newly introduced topic' into a conversation, because the actual information may already be a well known fact, but the speakers asserts that this information is now relevant to the current context.

 

Another problem I find is that using/not using 了 often doesn't make a sentence ungrammatical. It's more about what nuance you want to add the sentence, or if you don't use it, what would that sentence imply to natives?

[coobit]

Guys, Thanks alot for disscussion. I'm native russian speaker myself so "sentential 了" is not a problem for me, since I think we have here (in russian language) something like it. Like particle "ЖЕ" or many other.

 

The real problem for me is "verbal 了".

The perfective nature of "verbal 了" means almost nothign to me since 

1. 过 - is perfecive.
2. verb+RVC (for example ) is perfective.

So stressing perfectivness in "verbal 了" adds nothing to my understanding. 

I advise you all to read this:

https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1957/28373/YangLi-qiong1998.pdf?sequence=1

 

It's about different take on "verbal 了" in linguistics. And this article really gave something new to my understanding. I would love to here your opinions on it. thanks.

 

By the way: the idea about "dummy word"(T吃了飯) and "real object" (soldier) is good thing but still it doesn't "click" for me...

[davoosh]

It stresses the bounded object, see example:

 

他寫錯了那個字

他寫錯那個字了

 

吃飯 should really be treated as a single verb without an object, which is why using this verb in examples with 了 isn't the most useful, since aspect 了 (or verbal 了 as you are calling it) tends to occur with a clear object, or verbs which have a 'natural' bounding event to them (to die, to explode, etc). This is why 我吃了飯 isn't usually heard as a standalone phrase, whereas 我吃了兩噸飯/一個蘋果/etc. is fine.

 

The paper also seems to agree with this, as most of the example serve to show that what comes after 了 is the object of attention, whereas 過 emphasises the experience as a whole.

 

過 is usually referred to 'experiential'  rather than purely perfective.

 

I don't really trust the paper you linked after the author states "Chinese are more situation-centred, more concered with when, where, and with whom". These type of unquantifiable, generic statements do not belong in academic papers, in my opinion.

 

Also, the Spanish example in the paper is not accurate:

In the sentence "The boy climed a tree", the paper says that English emphasises the action, while Spanish emphasises the result of the action, i.e. "El niño está subido arriba de un árbol" (The boy is up there on a tree).  But in Spanish, you can equally say "El niño se subió a un árbol" which corresponds closely to the English "The boy climbed a tree".