Chinese verbs and nouns

[nipponman]

Hey everybody, I have a question. Basically, I want to know is the classification I find in my dictionary for verbs and nouns 100%, all the time, unchangeable? For example, 舉重 is a noun in my dictionary. I wander if it could be a verb, since 舉 is a verb, and 重 could just be its object. Is this possible? Can I say, 我要去舉重。 or do I have to say, 我要去幹舉重 ?

I think its the latter, but I want to make sure, thanks for your assitance,

nipponman

[gougou]

I can't help you about the specific example you mentioned, but I use three dictionaries, and from many, many depressive experiences, I can tell you that the classifications in each of these varies a lot. Often, one would list a word as a verb, while another would add noun, exclamation, adjective... But since there is none that would have all the classifications all the time, I guess there is no way of learning Chinese but having at least three dictionaries available at all times.

[skylee]

Can I say, 我要去舉重。 or do I have to say, 我要去幹舉重 ?

Yes you can. 幹 is not necessary here.

[whenhow]

舉重 is a whole word , could be a verb ,could be a none , " 舉重 is a good sport " ."we will 舉重 tomorrow " , don't divide 舉重 into " 舉 + 重 "

enjoy

[nipponman]

Ok, ok, thanks so far guys, but I get the feeling that I can say the first one only because of 去, so therefore, let's remove it and say 我要舉重, sub+aux verb+main verb (?)+object(?)

Is this legitimate? or do I need 幹 here? I appreciate the help so far, thanks!

nipponman

[xixi123]

well, i don't know how to explain it grammatically...

anyway, “我要舉重”has nothing wrong, you can also say ”我舉重‘ in some particular situations, for example,

”你做什麽運動啊？“

“我舉重”

ps, i don't think the grammer in chinese language is that fixed...

[Chunn]

I agree with xixi123, don't try to fix everything with grammar.

After learning for some years and living in China for few years, I almost forgot all about grammar and normally use my common sense. Of course, sometimes I have made mistake in my sentences, but anyway, basically Chinese people did understand what I say.

relax.

[nipponman]

Ok, thanks guys.

relax.

[xiaocai]

I'm not sure, but all my friends and I thought "举重" in both sentences are nouns and used as objective.

[Altair]

I personally find a grammatical approach quite helpful, but readily admit this is not true of everyone and in fact may not be true of most people. In this case, I think the better dictionaries will list 举重 as both a verb and as a noun. Speaking techniquely, however, I think that 举重 is verb-object compound that can be "substantivized."

One feature of Chinese grammar is that verbs can often be substantivized (i.e., made to function as nouns). The difficulty is that there is no overt indication of this. In English, we know that "lift weights" is a verbal construction and that "lifting weights" is a "substantivized" ("noun-like") equivalent (actually a "gerund") with the same meaning, but different usage. "To lift weights" (an infinitive phrase) is another possibility in some constructions. "Weight lifting" is yet another option; however, it is a pure noun construction and retains none of the potential verb functions of the other two.

In Chinese, I think that all these forms and functions are covered by 举重. Notice that even in English, these constructions are not always easily distinguishable according to meaning:

I lift weights for pleasure

I enjoy weight lifting.

I enjoy lifting weights.

I like to lift weights.

I say that 举重 is technically a verb-object compound, because many similar compounds can be separated in various constructions. From what I understand, the degree of separability and the constructions where separation is allowed varies from compound to compound, but it can be important to realize that separation is possible. I do not know about 举重 specifically, but wonder if such constructions as 举两次重, 没举过重, or 举很久的重了 might be possible, alongside 我很喜欢举重 and 举重很有意思.

[gougou]

From what I understand, the degree of separability and the constructions where separation is allowed varies from compound to compound, ...

So are there any ways to look that up? Or does it come down to memorizing as the only way?

[nipponman]

Thanks Altair, I always find your posts so interesting, if I can finish them:lol: !

nipponman

[Altair]

From what I understand' date=' the degree of separability and the constructions where separation is allowed varies from compound to compound, ...

So are there any ways to look that up? Or does it come down to memorizing as the only way?[/quote']

So are there any ways to look that up? Or does it come down to memorizing as the only way?

The only way to be sure is with a good dictionary and memorization; however, there are some general guidelines.

Li and Thompson have a good discussion of this in Mandarin Chinese: A functional Reference Grammar on pp. 73-78. They say that only a small minority of verb-object compounds do not allow any sort of separation, and they usually have highly idiomatic meaning. I am not sure I can give a definite example of such a fused compound. Li and Thompson give 革命 ge2 ming4, but Wenlin gives the phrase 革地主的命 ge2 di4 zhu3 de ming4 ("revolt against the landlords"). Perhaps 注意 zhu4 yi4, 关心 guan1 xin1, and 担心 dan1 xin1 are examples of fused compounds.

Li and Thompson divide separable compounds along a continuum of separability that can be classified into four general types (My headings and most of the examples are from pages 75-76):

(1) Separation by an aspect marker:

他还没理过发 ta1 hai2 mei2 li3 guo fa3 he still hasn't ever had a haircut

(2) Separation by a measure phrase:

她给我行了一个礼 ta1 gei3 wo3 xing2 le yi1 ge li3 she gave me a salute.

(3) Separation by other modifiers of the object constituent:

你别生他的气 ni3 bie2 sheng1 ta1 de qi4 Don't be angry with him.

(4) Placing the object constituent of the compound in a positon preceding the verb constituent:

她连舞都不跳 ta1 lian2 wu3 dou1 bu4 tiao4 she won't even dance

这一觉睡得真好 zhei4 yi1 jiao4 shui4 de hen3 hao3 I had a real good sleep.

Li and Thompson say that most compounds can undergo separations of type 1, 2, and 3, but type 4 is not "widely applicable."

Thanks Altair, I always find your posts so interesting, if I can finish them !

Thanks for the encouragement. As for the length, complexity, and dryness of my posts, I plead guilty. Imagine, however, if I tried to do them in Chinese and with traditional characters !