Is there any online dictionary which states which verbs are separable? A printed one?

I think that is the biggest issue with separable verbs in Mandarin - there is no obvious way to tell whether a verb is separable until you actually hear it separated.

There's no such thing as a "separable verb". The category was invented by a misogynist grammar nazi who thought Mandarin grammar wasn't difficult enough (because, honestly, it's pretty simple). To complicate matters, he (I'm sure it was a "he") invented a category of verbs and created a bunch of special rules to make students suffer.

Here's the Simonpettersson lesson on separable verbs: "Some transitive verbs have very strong collocations with commonly used objects."

Here's the bullturd nazi version: "Some two-character compounds look and behave exactly as though they were a transitive verb coupled with an object, but they're not! They are actually one single word, not two words, as you'd expect from the way they behave. Because this one single word behaves in ways that other words do not, we have to have these special rules. If we apply these special and complicated rules, we can make the word behave just as if it was two words. But it's not. That's very important."

If "吃饭" is a "separable verb", in what way does it differ from the verb-object couple "吃肉"? Or is "吃肉" also a separable verb? What about "吃豆腐"? Or how about "去香港"?

And it's weird that John (who obviously know they're really just verbs coupled with objects) refers to these as "obligatory objects". Granted, you cannot use 吃 or 结 without an object (though it doesn't have to be 饭 and 婚), but you can certainly use 睡 and 游 without any objects.

With regard to John's comment, perhaps 'generic objects' would have been a better description.

http://product.dangdang.com/product.aspx?product_id=9306306

That said, fortunately there is rule of thumb, that is, "separable verbs have a VO structure", but unfortunately the opposite is not always true, hehe. Here are some commonly used separable verbs, which I think are just enough for us learners here in Chinesepod.

碍事，安心，办公，办学，帮忙，报名，毕业，闭幕，编号，贬值，拨款，播音，拆台，超产，吵架，唱歌，吃饭，出差，出境，出口，出面，出院，出丑，创业，辞职，存款，打架，打针，怠工，贷款，担保，担心，道歉，登记，点火，订婚，定性，丢人，懂事，动身，对话，发病。发愁，发火，发言，罚款，放心，放学，分工，分手，付款，鼓掌，害羞，回信，灰心，汇款，会客，革命，集邮，加班，接吻，减产，见面，见效，结婚，结业，尽力，看病，考试，旷课，劳驾，理发，离婚，聊天，留学，露面，录像，录音，冒险，纳闷儿，拼命，签名，请客，缺席，让步，散步，上当，上班，扫兴，生病，生气，生效，失学，失业，梳头，睡觉，说话，算数，叹气，探亲，听话，跳舞，剃头，投资，问好，握手，洗脸，洗头，洗澡，下班，像样，泄气，疑心，用力，用心，有用，游泳，造反，照相，住院，着急，坐班，做梦

Although you do ask how does 吃饭 differ from 吃肉...I don't really know, but it seems to differ...for instance if someone called me and asked me what I was doing and I said 我在吃肉....wouldn't that be a little weird?

This QingWen could have been 4 hours long and I would have listened to the whole thing...twice. Every time I open my mouth to say a verb I basically know I am using it incorrectly but I've never been totally clear why because I never understood this separable verb situation. So at least now I know what direction to go in.

Connie gave some wrong then right examples. I listened to it again and here are the wrong then the correct:

Wrong: 昨天我见面了他。(zuótiān wǒ juòmiàn le tā)

Right: 昨天我跟他见了面。(zuótiān wǒ gēn tā juò le miàn)

Wrong: 小王结婚了小李 (xiǎo wáng jiéhūn le xiǎo lǐ.)

Right: 小王和小李结婚了 (xiǎo wáng hé xiǎo lǐ jiéhūn le.)

Wrong: 妈妈洗澡孩子 (māma xǐzǎo háizi.)

Right: 妈妈给孩子洗澡。(māma gěi háizi xǐzǎo.)

It certainly would, but that doesn't mean there are any grammatical differences. The difference is purely social. The difference between "吃饭" and "吃肉" is like the difference in English between "Watch TV" and "Watch 'Ally McBeal'". One is more specific than the other, but they're grammatically equivalent. You add the "TV" because "watch" needs an object, just like "吃"*. My point is that treating these constructions as one word is unnecessarily complicating things and means you need to make special rules. If you treat them as two-word collocations, there's no controversy; they behave just like other words. No need for any special rules. You might as well say that "Watch TV" in English is a "separable verb", which means that the past tense is "Watched TV" (吃过饭) instead of "Watch TVed" (吃饭过) and so on. It makes as much sense. The reason this confusion appears is because Chinese doesn't have spaces.

*Okay, you can say "I'm watching", but it sounds really creepy, especially on the phone, and it doesn't convey watching a show of some kind the way that "I'm eating" conveys eating a meal of some kind, as opposed to candy or one's heart out.

礙事，安心，辦公，辦學，幫忙，報名，畢業，閉幕，編號，貶值，撥款，播音，拆臺，超產，吵架，唱歌，吃飯，出差，出境，出口，出面，出院，出醜，創業，辭職，存款，打架，打針，怠工，貸款，擔保，擔心，道歉，登記，點火，訂婚，定性，丟人，懂事，動身，對話，發病。發愁，發火，發言，罰款，放心，放學，分工，分手，付款，鼓掌，害羞，回信，灰心，匯款，會客，革命，集郵，加班，接吻，減產，見面，見效，結婚，結業，盡力，看病，考試，曠課，勞駕，理髮，離婚，聊天，留學，露面，錄影，錄音，冒險，納悶兒，拼命，簽名，請客，缺席，讓步，散步，上當，上班，掃興，生病，生氣，生效，失學，失業，梳頭，睡覺，說話，算數，嘆氣，探親，聽話，跳舞，剃頭，投資，問好，握手，洗臉，洗頭，洗澡，下班，像樣，洩氣，疑心，用力，用心，有用，游泳，造反，照相，住院，著急，坐班，做夢

There are verbs that can take multiple objects: 我要告诉他这件事.

The verbs in the separable verb category cannot take multiple objects, and frequently translate (often into intransitive verbs in English) in such a way as to be easily confused with regular two-character verbs. Separable also have a strong tendency to take their objects rather than operate alone (hence the not-entirely-accurate "obligatory object" moniker).

You can learn Chinese (or any language) without studying any grammar at all. But it's useful for most of us.

In English the 他 would be called the indirect object, and the 这件事 the direct object. Would they be classified the same way in Chinese.

I'm asking, because I'm wondering if there is a rule that the Indirect Object should be placed before the Direct Object?

Wshoey said my comments helped a bit, so I'm satisfied with that. I hope you and the 情温 ladies didn't take offense from my little Godwin. You know I love you, I hope.

Incidentally, if you do have time at some later point, I for one would be really interested in hearing more in-depth about the usefulness of the classification.

I think looking at it in this way suggests there is actually some structure to something that previously looked random to many of us.

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.

...

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 (tā hái méi lǐ guo fǎ) he still hasn't ever had a haircut

(2) Separation by a measure phrase:

她给我行了一个礼 (tā gěi wǒ xíng le yīge lǐ) she gave me a salute.

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

你别生他的气 (nǐ bié shēng tāde qì) 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 (tā lián wǔ dōu bù tiào) she won't even dance
这一觉睡得真好 (zhèi yī jiào shuì de hěn hǎo) 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."

The example sentence “小王和小李结婚了。” seems to contradict the rule “助词要放在离合词的中间。”  Would it also be OK to say “小王和小李结了婚。”?

First, ChinesePod does an amazing job teaching Mandarin given the medium. There is not another Internet site in this world that begins to compare with the quality of the teachers, and the methodology.

But, given the opportunity, I am certain that learning to speak before one learns to either read or write, i. e., learning a language by immersion, is the most successful way to become a *spontaneous listener/speaker,* that is to day, someone who speaks without hesitation. Our language learning minds know how to generate grammatical rules and do it by trial and error. Anyone with children knows this to be true.

I've personally experienced this myself since I learned Spanish the traditional way: 4 years of high school followed by 3 semesters at the University of California at Berkeley. I could never speak to my own personal satisfaction nor understand the evening news or a soccer broadcast in Spanish.

I learned French by immersion and am 100% fluent: Movies, news, sports, etc... I also read and write French. I did learn French grammar on my own by reading French grammar books in French. I never used a French-English dictionary. Purely learned French in French. Right, I've many French friends locally.

Grammar helps us all tune our language skills, and to be honest, if we could learn Mandarin grammar in Mandarin, that would be so cool. Alas, we cannot.

That's the short version (-:

I agree that the best way to learn the language is to go to China and immerse oneself in the language.

But for those of us not in China, I don't think Chinese Pod qualifies as immersion.

I think you are doing what many people like to do - that is generalise to the whole population based on what works for you. I for one could never learn to speak a language just by listening. I need some form of instruction. I know I am in the minority on this site, but from talking to others I believe I am in the majority in the general population. I do need this immersion (if thats what it is), but I need the basic understanding first.

Having said that, I accept that people who learn like you are likely to become fluent a lot quicker. Its the best method IF one learns that way.

I have been learning Chinese for about 2 - 2.5 years now and have started to focus (more) on grammar the last half year and that has been an eye opener for me. As John said: one can learn a language by total immersion and without bothering too much about grammar or classification.

However, I got kind of stuck after being able to communicate comfortably in Chinese ( most of it I learnt by immersion) .

Daily life language is rather limited if not simple. Hearing Chinese around you (and understanding ) it is much different than really grasping and mastering a language (if that is your goal). Especially for a language that is so different from Western languages. So it is relatively easy to copy or imitate your surroundings, but the knowing the rationale and bringing your language to a higher level is something else.

Also if you know the rules or the blueprint of a language you can grasp it much quicker. I deducted many rules or classifications myself in the beginning, but in retrospect I see my mistakes when learning about the rules.

Moreover I like to understand WHY people around me say the things they do. Grammar enriches your understanding of a language and one can master it more thorough and quicker is my point of view. :-).

The more I progress, the lesser I think of my level and realize how much work it is :-).

Your suggestions were all excellent, I am very happy with them! Thanks for sharing!

My point was and still is that we are well equipped I think genetically to learn languages and the best approach to first learn to listen and speak, next learn to read and write, and finally to dive into grammar. This makes us more spontaneous as listeners and speakers.

How did I immerse myself while not in France? I have many French friends here in the states and we spoke all of the time. They happily corrected my errors in French in French. I read 100's of French novels beginning with elementary school books and then proceeded up to the best of authors and poets. I always had my "Petit Robert" handy. That's an excellent French dictionary. I listened exclusively to French popular music in my car, and now that's changed to Mandarin by the way. Slowly but surely everything clarified.

Finally, I traveled to France both on business and for pleasure and insisted that everyone spoke French. My wife and I have been to France more than 40 times, or about a year and one half of total visits in small pieces.

This was an experiment of one person. That is correct. It took patience and diligence. And above all, 我喜欢学中文，但是我总是慢慢来 (-: I do this for the pure pleasure of the learning experience.

A nice way to teach. Connie will make a great 妈妈！

But can't say 他睡觉了一天。Tā shuìjiào le yī tiān.