When can the place come after the verb?

[Christa]

1 hour ago, Tøsen said:

13 hours ago, yueni said:

• 在 comes before the verb: occurs when the noun performing the action indicated by the verb has to be in a specific location first before the action can be done. Usually concerned with the location of the subject.
• 在 comes after the verb: occurs when it indicates the final location of a completed action.Typically, location is quite important and maybe even the focus in this sentence structure. Usually (but not always) concerned with the location of the object.

@ChristaIs this unclear?

 

Well, I think it's probably a good explanation for most people but I struggle myself.

 

The first part I think I understand. If I simplify it, I think it means:

 

在 comes before the verb when the person performing the action has to be in the location before the action can be done.

 

So 我在香港住了两年了 is ordered the way it is because in order to have been there for two years one needs to have been there at the very start of that period.

 

But the second part, I just don't understand what it means:

 

在 comes after the verb: occurs when it indicates the final location of a completed action.Typically, location is quite important and maybe even the focus in this sentence structure. Usually (but not always) concerned with the location of the object.

 

For example 我住在香港. How is this the final location of a completed action? Isn't it an on-going action? I mean, if I still live in Hong Kong. How is that completed? Also, I don't understand the meaning of "object" as it's used in grammar. 

 

Could anyone simplify this second part?

 

[Wippen (inactive)]

@Christa

58 minutes ago, Christa said:

Also, I don't understand the meaning of "object" as it's used in grammar. 

I am a bit baffled that you are asking about very basic grammar such as the meaning of an object. Hopefully you won't mind my direct ways here:

 

On the one hand you express yourself very eloquently in writing and to me it just seems at odds with the level of your questions. I am surprised that you can write that well, structure your questions logically, and then at the same time say you do not understand the terminology and function of fairly simple grammar.  Your question here is inquisitive and is posed with some lucid insight too - you are obviously someone who gets excited about learning and want to find out the rules and get to the bottom of things. I am therefore intrigued you are not that interested in learning basic principles behind your own languages. That would give you a solid foundation. I think you already know that.

 

This could of course also be some light-hearted joke on your part.

If it is I have enjoyed it. Threads like yours are definitely good for discussion and I have enjoyed reading the contributions here. In fact I have learnt somthing too.

[Christa]

48 minutes ago, Tøsen said:

1 hour ago, Christa said:

Also, I don't understand the meaning of "object" as it's used in grammar. 

I am a bit baffled that you are asking about very basic grammar such as the meaning of an object. Hopefully you won't mind my direct ways here:

 

On the one hand you express yourself very eloquently in writing and to me it just seems at odds with the level of your questions. I am surprised that you can write that well, structure your questions logically, and then at the same time say you do not understand the terminology and function of fairly simple grammar.  Your question here is inquisitive and is posed with some lucid insight too - you are obviously someone who gets excited about learning and want to find out the rules and get to the bottom of things. I am therefore intrigued you are not that interested in learning basic principles behind your own languages. That would give you a solid foundation. I think you already know that.

 

This could of course also be some light-hearted joke on your part.

If it is I have enjoyed it. Threads like yours are definitely good for discussion and I have enjoyed reading the contributions here. In fact I have learnt somthing too.

 

I don't think anyone acquires their native language by being taught grammar terminology. One can speak and write eloquently without knowing any of the grammatical terms used to describe the various parts of one's native language.

 

You ask why I am "not interested in learning basic principles" but it is not necessarily a case of not being interested. I grew up in the U.K. where, for two generations, no-one was taught grammar at school. We learnt to read and write but without learning the terms to describe the different parts of a sentence. Trying to then learn these as an adult is very difficult. Profoundly so, in fact. Most people I went to school with still don't know what a noun, adjective or verb is.

 

Anyway, as I say, I do not lack interest and nor am I making a light-hearted joke - although I am glad to hear that my educational inadequacies are amusing to others -  I am instead simply striving to understand what "在 comes after the verb when it indicates the final location of a completed action" means - particularly in the context of a sentence such as 我住在香港.

[Wippen (inactive)]

14 minutes ago, Christa said:

although I am glad to hear that my educational inadequacies are amusing to othe

@Christa

First of all I did not say that not mean it in that way. 

 

Thanks for explaining the situation  I now understand that you genuinely didn't understand  I think you are going to have a tougher time learning Chinese without some grammar foundation. I think basic grammar is easier ti learn than learning Chinese  to me at any rate.

 

Let us make peace. I was not sure if your questions were real.

14 minutes ago, Christa said:

although I am glad to hear that my educational inadequacies are amusing to othe

@Christa

First of all I did not say that not mean it in that way.  I think you also overlooked the praise

 

Thanks for explaining the situation  I now understand that you genuinely didn't understand  I think you are going to have a tougher time learning Chinese without some grammar foundation. I think basic grammar is easier ti learn than learning Chinese  to me at any rate.

 

Let us make peace. I was not sure if your questions were real. Now I am

[Christa]

6 minutes ago, Tøsen said:

Let us make peace. I was not sure if your questions were real. Now I am

 

Yes, they are sadly real.

 

The truth is, I can speak Chinese fairly well. However, I often don't know why things are they way they are and I find it useful to find out.

 

I have learnt what subjects and objects are many times but it doesn't really stick. I looked it up again a moment ago and I can understand (at least for as long as I'm likely to remember it) what one is again. However, I don't feel I understand the second part of the explanation any better:

 

在 comes after the verb: occurs when it indicates the final location of a completed action.Typically, location is quite important and maybe even the focus in this sentence structure. Usually (but not always) concerned with the location of the object.

 

How does that explain this: "我住在香港"?

 

[Christa]

Actually, looking at the explanation that "在 comes after the verb when it indicates the final location of a completed action" why then is the position of 在 different in the two following examples:

 

我住在香港。I live in Hong Kong.

我在香港住了两年。I lived in Hong Kong for two years.

 

And isn't the action in the second example more "completed" than in the first?

[anonymoose]

I think part of the confusion comes from assuming that 住 has an exact correspondence with the word "live". Whereas we think of living at a place necessarily as an ongoing state, it may help to think of 住 as an action of settling down or stopping at a location. In fact, 住 also has the meaning of stop, as in 停住.

 

As I explained in my first post, when the location is a result of or the destination of the action, then 在location follows the verb. When the location just happens to be where the action takes place, the 在location phrase comes before the verb.

 

In most instances, 在location will precede the verb, simply because in most situations location is incidental to where the action takes place (i.e. just happens to be where the action takes place - but the same action could have equally well taken place anywhere else).

她在图书馆看书。(She is reading in the library, but she could equally well be reading at home or in the bookshop. The location does not affect the action of reading.)

画儿在墙上挂着。(The picture is hanging on the wall, but it could equally well be hanging off a tree or a lamppost. The specific location does not alter the fact that the picture is hanging.)

他在香港住了两年了。(He has lived for two years. It happens to be in Hong Kong that he has lived for two years, but had he been in Singapore, he's have equally lived for two years. The specific location does not affect the fact that he has lived for two years.)

 

However, when the location is the endpoint of an action, then 在location follows the verb. In this case, the location is an integral part of the action (i.e. living in Hong Kong can only take place in Hong Kong).

画儿被挂在了墙上。(The picture was hung on the wall. Hanging it anywhere else will mean it is not hung on the wall. The location is an integral part of the action.)

他住在香港。(He lives in Hong Kong. If he has settled down in Singapore or anywhere else, then he necessarily cannot be living in Hong Kong. The location is an integral part of the action.)

 

I personally think this is the easiest way to understand the difference. Thinking in terms of emphasis in the sentence is too nonspecific. For example, one could argue that in 他在香港住了两年了, the emphasis is on the time, but if I changed it to 他在香港住了两年，而在新加坡住了一年, clearly the emphasis is now on the location, even though the postion of the 在location phrase in the sentence hasn't changed.

 

 

[RJH]

Having read and considered all of these comments, I think a simply way to put it is that for a verb of "positioning", if I can call it that, the "在" phrase typically comes after the verb, and you can think of "住" as a verb of positioning, just like "放", "坐", "站", "待", etc.

 

This is subject to any sort of structural change in emphasis that might be possible, or otherwise necessary structural change, which is why you get "我住在香" but "我在香港住了两年".

[RJH]

(Apologies for the double post, but I didn't know I wouldn't be permitted to fix typos at first, and gained editing privileges only after my first post was already locked down.)

 

Having read and considered all of these comments, I think a simple way to put it is that for a verb of "positioning", if I can call it that, the "在" phrase typically comes after the verb, and you can think of "住" as a verb of positioning, just like "放", "坐", "站", "待", etc.

 

This is subject to any sort of change in emphasis that may be possible or necessary, which is why you get "我住在香港" but "我在香港住了两年".