FOR ADULTS ONLY: A first glimpse at hardcore Chinese grammar

Wow. Thank you for the don't-know-how-many-th time today for that. What a cv that the Professor has. And this work in particular caught my eye, of course:

《简明汉阿(拉伯)词典》

Going to find out about the THUNDERBIRDS now... 

UPDATE: Okay, I just checked out the THUNDERBIRDS clip. Thanks. Yes, I have seen it before!

But now I remember being frightened of the puppets when I was a very little girl, I couldn't bear to watch it. But Sesame Street, Muppet Show, and Sharri Lewis (sp.? the lady with the sock puppet, "Lambchop") were all okay. My parents brought me to Mdm Tussaud's wax museum in London when I was six, and I am told that I had my eyes tightly shut for the entire outing, in fact I was clinging to my parents like a koala bear. During that same year, my mother also (impulsively) bought me a ventriloquist's dummy from Hamley's, a clown with orange hair that I spent many years of my childhood trying not to look at. Stunt Toddler is NOT going to suffer in the same way.

It's hard to imagine where the Grumpy Auntie came from...

Hi auntie68,

Here is the profile of Professor 钟梫. It seems that he has greatly contributed to the dissemination of Mandarin in foreign countries including Singapore.

钟梫(Zhong Qin)教授祖籍浙江杭县，1931年生于上海。高中就读于上海的教会中学——沪江大学附中。五十年代初毕业于北京清华大学外国语言文学系。自五十年代 初，钟教授一直从事对外汉语教学工作，曾执教于清华、北大、北外、北京语言大学(原北京语言学院)、开罗高等语言学院、伊斯兰堡国立现代语言学院、意大利波隆尼大学、新加坡教育学院等学府，并被聘为伊斯兰堡国立语言学院外籍学术顾问。

主要著作有：《汉语语音教程》(英、法、德、乌尔都文本)、《外国人学普 通语》、《每日汉语》(1, 2, 3), 《教学普通话》、《双通道中英、英中实用字典》、《汉字读音字典》等；主持编写出版《简明汉英词典》，并为《简明汉 西词典》、《简明汉日词典》、《简明汉朝词典》、《简明汉阿(拉伯)词典》、《简明汉越词典》的汉语部分负责人。钟梫教授的十多种著作，大都用英语撰写，小部分用俄语撰写，如《学说中国话》等，《教学普通话》和《汉字读音字典》是用汉语编写

As for “Brighter Readings in Classical Chinese”, I guarantee that the members of the 红楼梦 group, me included, will definitely butt in. THUNDERBIRDS are go! (Do you happen to know this sci-fi TV show?) If you don’t know it, please click on here.

http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=9RzCB3VRruE

Ah, thank you so much changye! So it looks like the "words" being referred to by the author are actually 语素, then? 

The example of 心酸 as a "word"/ 语素 came directly from the book. As well as the example of 胆子大 as a "non-word" (exactly as you said). So -- 他很大胆... 他胆子很大... hmm, Chinese can't be easy for complete Newbies. From now I'll be careful to use the right word to describe a "word" in the sense of this "zen" question that I have foolishly set for myself.

The "good news" is that the fifth part is not difficult at all, it is a very nice list of 40 terms used by Chinese in dictionaries to describe "voice"/"aspect". Really useful for anybody starting to use a Chinese dictionary. Eg. words like "irony", "humour", "perjorative" etc. And plenty of examples for each one!

I love not only the Chinese language, but also these differences between Chinese and English. Thank you so much, again. What I should do is: mail this book to you, so that you can take us where we should go! 

P/s: changye, I also own another reader by this same author, which is entitled, "Brighter Readings in Classical Chinese". There are similar grammar sections there too, on Classical Chinese. If any of us are still standing after I'm done with my insane project, we could have a go at that...

Hi auntie68,

With regard to the “Zen riddle”, what the author would like to say is, perhaps, that 沙发 (语素) is bigger than 沙 and 发 (音节), but smaller than 旧沙发 (句子). In general, you  can say that phrase (句) ＞ morpheme (语素) ＞ syllable (音节) ＞ phoneme (音素), and, of course, some words have a few characteristics simultaneously, for example, the character “来” (lai2, come!) is a phrase, as well as a morpheme and a syllable.

As for “心酸”, I guess that it was NOT a 语素and was probably regarded as “心 + 酸” in classical Chinese. In other words, adhesiveness between characters was not so strong in 文言. In modern Chinese, people generally think 心酸 is one word (语素), but you can still see the phrase “心很酸” on the Internet, although I don’t know whether or not it is grammatically authentic in 现代汉语. It’s just a wild guess, as always.

P/S. 胆子大 is not a 语素, but 大胆 is.

*Important correction(???): I've just consulted my Little Dictionary again, and now I have the feeling that the Chinese term which corresponds to what the author calls "word" may actually be 语素 (yu3su4), NOT 词. Sorry for my error.

I do hope that somebody whose Mandarin is more advanced can look this up too, and help to determine whether 语素 offers a better fit with the above analysis.

For what it's worth, here is the definition given in my Little Dictionary (plus the examples):

语素 yu3su4:

（名）语言中有意义的最小单位，华语里有单音节语素，如“人，你，走” 等，有双音节语素，如“葡萄，沙发“等，有多音节语素， 如”可口可乐“等。

• 一个语素。
• 这个词是由两个语素构成的。
• 哪个字是语素，哪个字不是语素，有时很难确定。(how true!!!)

I think the easiest way for a native speaker (or changye) to help us address this question is via the following questions:

"Is 心酸 a 语素？"

"Is 胆子大 a 语素？"

Hi auntie68,

Haha, the book is relatively new compared to the Chinese conversation textbook (for Russian people) aert often mentioned before! That was published about one hundred years ago!

Hello changye, I just saw your post. Here is the information on the book:

Title: 每日汉语 Everyday Chinese: 60 Fables and Anecdotes (New World Press, 1983)

Btw, the author's name is Zhong Qin (*sorry, my hanyu input doesn't have the second character, the surname is 钟). Thanks!

@wispy7: Thank you for recommending that title, which sounds interesting. That could turn out to be the first book I ever buy from China (*gulp*, hope I can understand the instructions on the screen...). Anybody who can refer to "my teacher in Beijing" should probably be writing this thread instead of me!

@changye, frances: I've just finished reading the next chapter (Chapter 2 of 5), entitled "Words and Non-Words". I need to go away and think about what I've read before I can even begin to try sharing it with you. Fortunately, Stunt Toddler has a break from school this week, so I can hear myself think.

But for now -- and as a sort of teaser/trailer --, the chapter seems to be about the reasons why certain characters (or character combinations) may be considered words (I believe the author is referring to 词；ci2), in the sense that they are autonomous, and also, "morphologically fixed". 

IMHO, this is confirmed by the definition of 词 in my Little Dictionary: (名）语言中可以自由运用的最小单位。In my own very clumsy translation, "The smallest unit in language which may function independently/ autonomously". Cf. the definition of 字 (zi4; "character").

This seems to be directly relevant to the exact points raised by changye and frances, because one of the crucial tests seems to be: How 虚词 -- empty words -- such as 不 and 很 are placed in relation to the components of any given character combination.

Eg. You could say, "他很心酸“ because 心酸 (xin1suan1) is a 词. But you could not say, “他很胆子大", because the character combination 胆子大 (dan3zi3da4) is not a 词;  you can (/must!!!) insert the 虚词 "很" between the component characters, which gives you "他胆子很大“. 

As the author points out (very helpfully), both character combinations can function as Predicates, but the syntactical differences become apparent when they are tested with 虚词.

If anybody is still with me at this point, thank you so much for your support. Do please stay tuned; I'll need your help to make sure that we get this right when I do finally get round to trying to summarize this chapter. If you want to wrap your minds around something in the interim, how about the exact words of the two sentences which the author used to summarize the chapter:

"1. Words differ from non-words which are bigger than words"

"2. Words differ from non-words which are smaller than words"

Spoken like Yoda...

Hi frances,

You are right! As you said, 助动词 (auxiliary verbs) actually can stand alone and make a phrase by itself, so it’s fully eligible to be called as 实词 (solid words). Then, how about 量词 (measure words) ? I still don’t think that they can make a phrase by themselves, but this time, let me try to speculate on the reason why 量词 belong to 实词, but not to 虚词 (empty words).

量词 are used in combination with 数词 (numerals), e.g. 一头牛，两口猪，and 三坐山. Now, which do you think is more "concrete" (or abstract), 量词 and 数词? I think numbers are intrinsically very abstract and neutral entities. They are given concrete image only when used with 量词, such as 头，条，家 and 坐. So, 量词 are categorized as 实词 because they give substance to numerals.

I suppose the function of 量词 might be much more important than foreign Mandarin learners generally think. For example, “一座山” gives you more vivid image than just saying “一个山”. The phrase “一口猪” nicely represents characteristics of a pig. The same goes for “一条牛”, since the 条 indicates a long tail of a cow. In a way, 量词 is one of highlights in Chinese grammar.

P/S. Auntie, please let me know when the out-of-print reader was published.

@changye, about 量词 (measure words) and 助动词 (auxiliary verbs), here's where (if I understand this) I think they fit into the 实词 (solid words) class.

Auxiliary words are literally often sentences all by themselves, which I think makes them automatically "solid" unless they can be considered 叹词 (Interjections). For example: 你想吃吗？ 想。Though 想 is often a 动词 (Simple Verb), in the question it's definitely being used as an auxiliary. If I understand this correctly, this should mean that in the answer it is still an auxiliary, and the entire answer is an auxiliary verb working as a complete sentence. As the answer to a question, it could not possibly be an interjection, even when shouted.

Measure words often graduate from counting the thing to being the thing when the noun is omitted due to the excessive lack of other possible nouns in context. By this logic, a measure word deserves all the respect due a noun, because it may have to stand for one at any moment. Nouns can be considered to be phrases in Chinese... I just pulled my own Chinese grammar off the shelf where it has been collecting dust to confirm. So, nouns can be phrases, and they can abandon their measure words to hold the fort without them... making measure words into phrases.

It makes sense to me, but whether it's an advancement of my Chinese or merely intellectual sophistry, I don't know.

Now I want to look through my own grammar book to see if it discusses this whole solid/empty word concept.

@auntie - This is great! Please add more pages if you have time.A book recommended to me by my teacher in Beijing, 语法答问 by 朱德熙 is a slim, thorough introduction to Chinese grammar written in simple language for the Native Chinese non-linguist. Highly recommended and still in print!

@auntie - I looked her up. Interesting Bio.

Oh no, Henning, it's great (to me) that this thread isn't simply being buried for the moment. If the feedback is positive, I'll have a go at sharing the other four chapters.

The next chapter looks quite challenging; it deals with the question, "When is a Word Not a Word?". By this, I think they are referring to the question of what is a discrete, autonomous word -- ie a 词 -- which of course determines whether you should (or should not) split up the individual 字 with a 不 or 得 or 了 etc. Eg. 吃了饭 vs 吃饭了. Right now I do this instinctively, but it would be nice to know the actual reasons why.

@rjberki: Erm, Naomi Tani is a Japanese actress, so I think it's better if you ask changye.

Henning, I was actually surprised that Auntie knew this line, but she gets around. In the US all kids watched this movie on an annual basis on tv when I was growing up. The line refers to the vast difference between where she finds herself as opposed to where she came from. Kind of an understatement in her situation so it has come to mean dont expect anything to be as you would expect, from here on out. You are no longer involved in anything familiar.

Auntie - Tell me more about this Naomi Tani.

I hear that American people usually laught at this line when seeing Oz, ....perhaps except for Kansas people?  Haha.

Thanks, auntie, and sorry for hijacking this excellent thread.

@henning: The "Toto-" line is a line from the Wizard of Oz, where Dorothy realizes for the first time that the tornado has carried her, and her dog Toto, quite a bit further that she had thought. Instead of merely being blown to another corner of Kansas, she has been blown all the way to the magical Kingdom of Oz. HTH.

Dear changye, I think I shall dedicate this thread to Naomi Tani, the greatest x-rated actress in the history of Asian film. Thanks!

P/s: Jokes aside, the kinds of issues that you wrote about were very relevant to me, as a learner. Thank you for that. I'm not interested in learning how to parse Chinese sentences; what I think I am getting from this exercise is a better understanding of the definitions and explanations in my "Chinese-only" dictionary.

changye,

no.

Hi henning,

Have you ever seen the movie "Wizard of Oz"?

Sorry, English question.

RJ, what does "Toto, I Don't Think We're in Kansas Anymore" refer to and what does it mean? I get nearly 8000 Google hits for the phrase but it is neither in my dictionaries nor in Wikipedia (except for a reference to a kid movie)?

Hi auntie68,

Thank you for the X-rated thread. I’m sure that the best way to discourage elementary Mandarin learners from studying is to throw them into the wonderful world of Chinese grammar, especially the classification of parts of speech.

Dividing words into 实词 (solid words) and 虚词 (empty words) actually doesn’t make much sense to me. I guess this grammatical tradition in Chinese might come from 阴阳思想 (yin-yang thought), a philosophy of duality.

According to “现代汉语词典”, 虚词 is defined as “不能单独成句，意义比较抽象，有帮助造句作用的词”, i.e. “虚词” can’t make a phrase by itself. They have a relatively abstract meaning and help other words in making sentences.

In this sense, 副词 (adverb) might be allowed to belong to 虚词, but how about 量词 (measure words) and 助动词 (auxiliary words)? I think “只, 次, 条, 场” (量词) and “将, 要, 想, 该” (助动词) also should be categorized as 虚词.

现代汉语词典 only says that 实词 is “意义比较具体的词” (words that have relatively concrete meanings), and however it cleverly doesn’t define 实词 as “能单独成语”, because 量词 and 助动词 can’t meet this requirement.

The word “马上” (soon) is an adverb, and therefore it can’t make a phrase by itself, but Chinese waitresses often say ”马上!” at a restaurant. I know that it’s a shortened form of “你的菜马上就来”, but I can’t accept that it is a 虚词.

Hi rjberki. I loved the "血！" sentence, it was my favourite. So let me see now, it is a 独词句 ("single-word-sentence"), but other than that I can't figure out how to classify it using the other methods. Is it a subject? A predicate? Wow.

If you liked "血!", you probably already love "滚！“ (gun3), which is how Chinese tell people to "beat it!" or "scram!" or "get thee away from me anon, you miserable son of a cur!" in movies. Nice and economical. And that would be a -- what? -- 独词句 which is also a 祈使句 ! A single-word sentence which is also an imperative sentence! 

Thanks Auntie,  actually its the  “Toto, I don’t think we’re in Kansas any more!” feeling that I love about China and I guess it extends to the language as well. What is your take on the one word sentence 血！? 

Tsk tsk.

Auntie,
your trick worked on me: I somehow managed to overlook the very last word of this post's title. And so 居然 found myself reading a long post on grammar. ;)

6. In my humble opinion, things start to get really interesting and exotic when we get to the part where the component parts of the language are broken down (#2: Syntactical features):

·      By the component parts of a sentence (ie. different kinds of 语)； and

·      By classifying sentences based on (i) structure (ie. the different kinds of 语 which make up any given sentence); or (ii) function (ie. different kinds of 句)。

7. Here are the components of a sentence (6 categories):

·      Subjects 主语 zhu3yu3

·      Predicates 谓语 wei4yu3

·      Objects 宾语 bing1yu3

·      Attributives 定语 ding4yu3

·      Adverbial adjuncts 状语 zhuang4yu3

·      Complements 补语 bu3yu3

This is the point where I started to get that “Toto, I don’t think we’re in Kansas any more!” feeling. My book provides some nice examples, which I don’t have time to copy out now, but if anybody has specific requests, just let me know so that I can try to share (especially since this title is out of print).

8. The next section provided more confirmation that I was in the Land of Oz, wearing my red ruby shoes. Okay. If you classify sentences according to their structure, a Chinese person would arrive at 3 basic categories:

·      Subject-Predicate sentences 主谓句 zhu3wei4ju4

o   他喜欢打猎。

o   味道还好吗？

o   孔夫子山东人。

o   金华火腿果然味道好。

·      Impersonal sentences 无主句 wu2zhu3ju4

o   怎么，下起雨来了？

·       Single-word sentences 独词句 du2ci2ju4

o   注意

o   血！

Hmm…

9. And that same Chinese person would use the following 4 concepts to classify sentences according to function:

·      Declarative Sentences 陈述句 chen2shu4ju4

o   下雨了。

·      Interrogative Sentences  疑问句 yi2wen4ju4

o   下雨了吗？

·      Imperative Sentences 祈使句 qi2shi3ju4

o   喂，轻疑点儿！

·      Exclamatory Sentences 感叹句 gan3tan4ju4

o   多了不起！

 10. I believe that this sums up the “Outline of Modern Chinese Grammar”. I found it very interesting to see it all laid out in this way by my textbook. The emphasis on classifying and analysing sentences – sentences vs unique words -- made sense to me, given that Chinese is an “isolating” language, where shades of meaning – as well as precision -- are conveyed by word order (IMHO the biggest hurdle for Newbies struggling to get beyond the “unintelligible post” stage of learning).

HTH. Thanks and good luck, everybody!

Here goes:

1. Chinese grammatical concepts are a very different animal from anything to be found in an Indo-european language. I think that most learners eventually sense this at some point. Probably after they’ve been clobbered a few times by words which seem to morph between being nouns and verbs and adjectives (and what-have-you), depending on the context.

2. For example, the introductory “Outline of Modern Chinese Grammar”chapter offers two approaches:

·      Categorization by morphological features (ie. different kinds of 词); and

·      Analysis of syntactical features (ie. different kinds of 语, different kinds of 句).

3. Regarding #1 (Morphological features), Chinese words can be divided into one of two broad categories:

·      实词 (shi2ci2; “solid words”); or

·      虚词 (xu1ci2; “empty words”).

If it were up to me, I would translate these terms as “substantial words”/”non-substantial words”.

4. The 实词 (shi3ci2; “solid words”) category is organized into 9 subcategories:

·      Nouns (名词) ming2ci2

·      Pronouns (代词) dai4ci2

·      Verbs (动词) dong4ci2

·      Auxiliary verbs (助动词) zhu4dong4ci2

·      Adjectives (形容词) xing2rong2ci2

·      Numerals (数词) shu4ci2

·      Measure words (量词) liang4ci2

·      Prefixes (词头) ci2tou

·      Suffixes (词尾) ci2wei3

5. The 虚词 (xu1ci2; “empty words”) category is organized into 6 subcategories:

·      Adverbs 副词 fu4ci2

·      Prepositions 介词 jie4ci2

·      Conjunctions 连词 lian2ci2

·      Particles 助词 zhu4ci2

·      Interjections 叹词 tan4ci2

·      Onomatopoetic words 象声词 xiang4sheng1ci2