Comments on: Six Sentences in Chinese http://www.chipanglish.com/chinese/six_sentences/ Blogging semi-coherently in Chinese, Japanese, and English Sun, 31 Jan 2010 19:14:42 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Yvonne http://www.chipanglish.com/chinese/six_sentences/#comment-63 Yvonne Thu, 26 Feb 2009 05:39:15 +0000 http://www.chipanglish.com/?p=189#comment-63 Thanks for the reminder! I'd totally forgotten those even existed. Thanks for the reminder! I’d totally forgotten those even existed.

]]> By: Kaiwen http://www.chipanglish.com/chinese/six_sentences/#comment-62 Kaiwen Thu, 26 Feb 2009 05:18:08 +0000 http://www.chipanglish.com/?p=189#comment-62 If you're writing in traditional characters, remember that there are more characters than just 他, 她, and 它--there's also 祂 (biblical He) and 牠 (for animals). If you’re writing in traditional characters, remember that there are more characters than just 他, 她, and 它–there’s also 祂 (biblical He) and 牠 (for animals).

]]> By: Peter http://www.chipanglish.com/chinese/six_sentences/#comment-38 Peter Sun, 15 Feb 2009 18:59:08 +0000 http://www.chipanglish.com/?p=189#comment-38 Oh, the memories of my course in Chinese Syntax. What we have come to think of as "grammar" is actually <strong>syntax</strong> (the study of sentence structure) and <strong>morphology</strong> (the study of word structure). In linguistics, the term "grammar" is used as an umbrella term to describe phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, and pragmatics. You are correct in that Chinese is very minimal in morphological markers. In English, we have: -s, -ing,-ly, etc. These help indicate tense, parts of speech, etc. whereas Chinese doesn't have any. While Chinese is short on morphological markers, it does have syntactic markers that fulfill the same role. However, syntactically, there are structural rules that dictate where things can and cannot go. For the most part, Chinese follows a subject-verb-object (SVO) sentence construction. Changing the sentence construction can affect the semantics. Take for example: 1. <span lang="zh">蘋果是紅的. Ping2 guo3 shi4 hong2 de5</span>. Apple is red [possessive marker] We can keep all the words, but put them in a different order: 2. <span lang="zh">是紅的蘋果. Shi4 hong2 de5 ping2 guo3 </span>. Most native Chinese will agree that sentence 2 also refers to the redness of an apple, but the sentences are not necessarily identical in meaning. Sentence 2 emphasizes the fact that the apple is red, as opposed to green. In Chinese, many times, a native speaker will bring a direct object to the front of the sentence for emphasis. Likewise with the past-tense marker <span lang="zh">了</span>, <i>le5</i>. Let's compare the following sentences: 3. <span lang="zh">我給 John 蘋果 (了). Wo3 gei3 John ping2 guo3 (le5)</span>. I give John apple (marker to indicate an action is completed). and 4. <span lang="zh">我給(了)John 蘋果. Wo3 gei3 (le5) John ping2 guo3</span> Sentence 3 states that the entire event of me giving John the apple and his reception of the apple all happened in the past tense. Sentence 4 puts the past tense emphasis on the giving of the apple. John's reception of the apple is implied but it is not necessarily so. There is also the much debated ba-construction to indicate past tense, but I won't go into that. Oh, the memories of my course in Chinese Syntax. What we have come to think of as “grammar” is actually syntax (the study of sentence structure) and morphology (the study of word structure). In linguistics, the term “grammar” is used as an umbrella term to describe phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, and pragmatics.

You are correct in that Chinese is very minimal in morphological markers. In English, we have: -s, -ing,-ly, etc. These help indicate tense, parts of speech, etc. whereas Chinese doesn’t have any.

While Chinese is short on morphological markers, it does have syntactic markers that fulfill the same role. However, syntactically, there are structural rules that dictate where things can and cannot go. For the most part, Chinese follows a subject-verb-object (SVO) sentence construction. Changing the sentence construction can affect the semantics. Take for example:

1. 蘋果是紅的.
Ping2 guo3 shi4 hong2 de5.
Apple is red [possessive marker]

We can keep all the words, but put them in a different order:
2. 是紅的蘋果.
Shi4 hong2 de5 ping2 guo3 .

Most native Chinese will agree that sentence 2 also refers to the redness of an apple, but the sentences are not necessarily identical in meaning. Sentence 2 emphasizes the fact that the apple is red, as opposed to green.

In Chinese, many times, a native speaker will bring a direct object to the front of the sentence for emphasis.

Likewise with the past-tense marker 了, le5. Let’s compare the following sentences:

3. 我給 John 蘋果 (了).
Wo3 gei3 John ping2 guo3 (le5).
I give John apple (marker to indicate an action is completed).

and

4. 我給(了)John 蘋果.
Wo3 gei3 (le5) John ping2 guo3

Sentence 3 states that the entire event of me giving John the apple and his reception of the apple all happened in the past tense. Sentence 4 puts the past tense emphasis on the giving of the apple. John’s reception of the apple is implied but it is not necessarily so.

There is also the much debated ba-construction to indicate past tense, but I won’t go into that.

]]>