Little phrase 活多的做不完

[ThatBlokeDave]

Hello Everyone,

I came across the phrase "活多的做不完" in a lesson. Just wondering what everyone would translate this as? Sometimes when a 的 appears it is hard for me to tell whether it is linking the two parts together or just part of the first section.

For me I think it should be broken down as

活多的...做不完

lots of work....not finished

My lesson translates it in context as "There was more stuff than we could possibly finish" which made me question myself and whether the 的 is actually acting in a different manner.

Thanks

Dave

[skylee]

Does it appear in a text book? If it does it is weird. The 的 should really be 得. The longer translation is ok. The short one is not.

[ThatBlokeDave]

Hi skylee

Thanks for replying.

For me the only way the longer version makes sense is to switch the 的 to 得 as you pointed out.

The examle was actually on a Chinese pod lesson. I just wanted to ask here to get a different perspective from another group.

So assuming the 的 is correct, I cannot get to the longer translation in my mind

[YuehanHao]

Another point (which I am not sure is even in question): 做不完 would not mean "not finished"; rather, it would mean "unable to complete." Conversely, 做得完 connotes "able to complete." If it is helpful, I think this structure is called a potential complement.

[skylee]

So assuming the 的 is correct, I cannot get to the longer translation in my mind

No need to assume. It is not correct.

Edit - Please see #12. It seems that it is not incorrect. And according to Xiandai Hanyu Cidian you can get to the longer translation.

[creamyhorror]

For me the only way the longer version makes sense is to switch the 的 to 得 as you pointed out.

Misusing 的 where a 得 should be is a *very* common mistake on the mainland, and you'll see it even more often than the correct usage. This example exactly fits that misuse. That's why skylee is right and you shouldn't bother trying to figure out what it means with 的, because it's wrong.

[roddy]

Yeah, if you ever can't understand a sentence with a 'de' in it, it's worth asking yourself if it might be the wrong 'de'.

[ThatBlokeDave]

Ok thanks everyone, saved me a headache trying to figure out the impossible.

[yialanliu]

In modern times, there's a push by some especially of the younger generation to replace 的得地 to only using 的。This has taken place online especially where people will just use 的 even if it is not gramatically correct. If the change is accepted, then it will change the grammar behind all of this, but because of this, it is something that should be taken account of.

While chinesepod shouldn't really be pushing for this and it is likely a mistake on their part, it's not something unseen. If you ever use forums in chinese, you'll see these quirks similar to how you'll see slang in English forums. While they aren't accurate, it is used frequently. Hence if you google the phrase, you'll get plenty of results.

So saying it is completely inaccurate is false since it is used enough to be seen as not a mistake and something done on purpose.

I like to think of this as a way of getting back to foreigners like the US usage of That's disgusting, that's nasty to mean that's totally awesome. Wouldn't say people using those english terms as wrong, like how I wouldn't say the chinese is wrong.

[imron]

I think it's more like your/you're, its/it's, their/there/they're. It's not uncommon for native English speakers to make mistakes with these either.

In modern times, there's a push by some especially of the younger generation to replace 的得地 to only using 的

Is there a push, or do they just not care enough either way and aren't bothered when their IME uses 的 by default, especially when it's midway through a sentence and it's too much effort to go and change it?

[yialanliu]

I say a push because it's not a typo. They do it on purpose whereas they're and their are typos and people don't purposely type like that.

The root of it is mostly likely laziness however it's becoming more common in the sense where people are accepting their usage much to the dismay of college professors.

[skylee]

I have checked my Xiandai Hanyu Cidian (2001 edition). Here is what the dictionary says -

• 的 ~de 同得(2)(3)
  
• 得 ~de 助詞。......(2)用在動詞和補語中間，表示可能：拿得動 / 辦得到 / 回得來 / 過得去。 ...... (3)用在動詞或形容詞後面，連接表示結果或程度的補語：寫得非常好 / 天氣熱得很。
  
• there is no mention that 的 may be used to replace 地.
  

And this is what the Taiwan MOE Dictionary (online version) says -

• 的 - 結構助詞：......(4) 置於副詞後。同「地」。如：「慢慢的走」、「高高的飛」。
  
• 地 - 結構助詞。用在副詞之後。同「的」。如：「慢慢地吃」、「好好地玩」、「雨勢漸漸地小了。」
  
• there is no mention that 的 may be used to replace 得.
  

So it seems that the usages of 的 in place of 得地 are quite acceptable by the authorities. If we combine what these two dictionaries say then almost all we need is 的. So the people are right and what I learnt at school has become obsolete. I guess I have to refresh my knowledge on this.

But here is what I think. 的得地 are not exactly homophones, at least not in Cantonese (they are dik, dak, dei in Cantonese). So some people find one replacing another makes sense, others less so. I myself would sometimes use 的 in place of 地 in writing when I don't pay attention, but hardly ever use 的 in place of 得.

Conclusion - 活多的做不完 is not wrong according to Xiandai Hanyu Cidian. I will add a note in my #5.

[陳德聰]

I would like to point out that 的地得 are exactly homophones when all have the pronunciation [de].

But I'd also like to contest the idea that "If the change is accepted, then it will change the grammar behind all of this, but because of this, it is something that should be taken account of".

My main point would be that different orthographic representations of the same grammatical morpheme don't change the grammar or pose much of a problem for native speakers.

E.g. English

1. He's a boss. - grammatical function = contracted copula

2. John's boss. - grammatical function = possession

3. No dogs in the house. - grammatical function = plurality

All of these words use the same final [z] in different ways that are impossible to tell without knowing the rules of the sentence or seeing the apostrophe, which as we can see can be used in the exact same way to mean completely different things (1-2). This is pretty much how I view the 的地得 >> 的 issue, where the two prevailing theories are that a) there are 3 separate grammatical morphemes therefore 3 separate 字 and b) there is one grammatical morpheme with 3 alternations in orthography based on sentence structure. However, from the English example, we can see that people have no trouble separating grammatical morphemes that have the same orthographic representation.

A slightly more extreme example:

My father's painting. - The painting my father is in.

My father's painting. - The painting my father painted.

My father's painting. - The painting my father owns.

And if you don't think Chinese people do this already, what would you say to 行李 and 银行? We can tell that there is a difference between the two words even though the 字 is the same. It's essentially the same idea. If you change to an all-的 system, you don't actually have to worry about people messing up their grammar since it's just an orthographic representation which would still fit by pronunciation

I don't think we should really fear the 的地得 changing to 的, because it is just a sign of a growing and changing language.

[yialanliu]

Agreed, it's not a big deal. But it still changes the grammar since now you don't have to learn the differences hence a slight relearning. Will it be hard for most people? Nope. But still a changing of the grammar.

[skylee]

I would like to point out that 的地得 are exactly homophones when all have the pronunciation [de].

In Mandarin/Putonghua, yes.

[陳德聰]

I'm a little bit confused, how would you not have to learn the differences?

The grammatical functions of 的地得 are provided completely by distribution and syntax and have absolutely nothing to do with their orthographic representations... Children learn these grammatical functions before they learn to write, and in cases where people don't learn to read & write Chinese they still learn the different grammatical functions distinguished by these 字.

It would have absolutely no effect on the grammar at all,

[imron]

Skylee was referring to the fact that in Cantonese these characters have different pronunciations that are not the same as each other (see her post #12 for reference), and so they are not exact homophones for some Chinese languages.

[Francomax]

活多得做不完 。。。, 。。。得。。。 it's kind of like "too to"

So, u can translate is as"Too much work to do"

and the on the other hand, 的 得 地 are different. Hope u can realize this,

[陳德聰]

I didn't mean to come off like I was dismissing what skylee wrote, my response was primarily wrt what yialanliu posted about grammar.

[yialanliu]

relearn typically applies to people who have to re-learn. Not for little kids learning it the first time. Your point while true, doesn't apply in a relearning case for adults/older school kids