Return to Question

Observation:

保有财产; 抱有好感; 怀有敌意; 他俩育有一子; 学校设有音乐课; 杯子留有指纹

Bi-syllabic verbal compounds like those in bold above are sometimes treated as words (insofar as I found them all listed as "entries/lemmas" in at least one dictionary). When they do, they are presented as forming a lexical unit.

However,

桌上摆有一卷书; 屋中堆有一百袋大米; 庭中种有几棵树; 车上坐有四人; 桌上放有信件; 床下藏有黄金; 林里搭有帐篷; 城内通有地铁; 东北流有福溪

Bi-syllabic verbal compounds like these are not recorded in any dictionary, although they are similarly-formed and otherwise unexceptional. When pressed, people simply describe them as serial verb constructions.

Problem:

Chinese grammars describe many types of serial verb constructions, but NEVER in the V+有 pattern. Chinese dictionaries rarely if ever list any of the above V+有 compounds as words, as observed above. So how are we to analyse these compounds?

Morphologically, they do seem perfectly good candidates for word-hood but, syntactically, they could also be described as resultative constructions of one form or another.

Questions:

1. Do you think they are all simply collocations of verbs arranged in a resultative (or other?) construction?

2. If not (and so you think some of them are words), are there any criteria we can use to explain why some are to be excluded from word-hood?

3. If you're a Chinese native speaker, do compounds like 摆有, 堆有, 种有, 坐有 (which never appear in dictionaries) strike you as creative constructions?

   • If so: Would you compose them each time afresh, based on context? (For example, thinking of 庭+有树 and deciding to add in 种 to clarify how the tree are in the courtyard or thinking about 车+有人 and deciding to add in 坐 to clarify how the people are in the car)?
   • If not: Does it surprise you that some dictionaries list compounds like 持有, 保有, 抱有 and 育有 but no dictionary lists compounds like 摆有, 坐有, 种有 and 堆有? How would you explain this fact?

Observation:

保有财产; 抱有好感; 怀有敌意; 他俩育有一子; 学校设有音乐课; 杯子留有指纹

Bi-syllabic verbal compounds like those in bold above are sometimes treated as words (insofar as I found them all listed as "entries/lemmas" in at least one dictionary). When they do, they are presented as forming a lexical unit.

However,

桌上摆有一卷书; 屋中堆有一百袋大米; 庭中种有几棵树; 车上坐有四人; 桌上放有信件; 床下藏有黄金; 林里搭有帐篷; 城内通有地铁; 东北流有福溪; 这片苹果树中杂有几棵梨树。

Bi-syllabic verbal change compounds like these are not recorded in any dictionary, although they are similarly-formed and otherwise unexceptional. When pressed, people simply describe them as serial verb constructions.

Problem:

Chinese grammars describe many types of serial verb constructions, but NEVER in the V+有 pattern. Chinese dictionaries rarely if ever list any of the above V+有 compounds as words, as observed above. So how are we to analyse these compounds?

Morphologically, they do seem perfectly good candidates for word-hood but, syntactically, they could also be described as resultative constructions of one form or another.

Questions:

1. Do you think they are all simply collocations of verbs arranged in a resultative (or other?) construction?

2. If not (and so you think some of them are words), are there any criteria we can use to explain why some are to be excluded from word-hood?

3. If you're a Chinese native speaker, do compounds like 摆有, 堆有, 种有, 坐有, 杂有 (which never appear in dictionaries) strike you as creative constructions?

   • If so: Would you compose them each time afresh, based on context? (For example, thinking of 庭+有树 and deciding to add in 种 to clarify how the tree are in the courtyard or thinking about 车+有人 and deciding to add in 坐 to clarify how the people are in the car)?
   • If not: Does it surprise you that some dictionaries list compounds like 持有, 保有, 抱有 and 育有 but no dictionary lists compounds like 摆有, 坐有, 种有 and 堆有? How would you explain this fact?

Observation:

保有财产; 抱有好感; 怀有敌意; 他俩育有一子; 学校设有音乐课; 杯子留有指纹

Bi-syllabic verbal compounds like those in bold above are sometimes treated as words (insofar as I found them all listed as "entries/lemmas" in at least one dictionary). When they do, they are presented as forming a lexical unit.

However,

桌上摆有一卷书; 屋中堆有一百袋大米; 庭中种有几棵树; 车上坐有四人; 桌上放有信件; 床下藏有黄金; 林里搭有帐篷; 城内通有地铁; 东北流有福溪

Bi-syllabic verbal compounds like these are not recorded in any dictionary, although they are similarly-formed and otherwise unexceptional. When pressed, people simply describe them as serial verb constructions.

Problem:

Chinese grammars describe many types of serial verb constructions, but never in the V+有 pattern. Chinese dictionaries rarely if ever list any of the above V+有 compounds as words. So what are they?

Morphologically, they do seem perfectly good candidates for word-hood but, syntactically, they could also be described as resultative constructions of one form or another.

Question:

So I wonder,

1. Do you think they are all simply collocations of verbs arranged in a resultative (or other?) construction?

2. If you think some of them are words, are there any criteria we can use to explain why the others are to be excluded from word-hood?

3. If you're a Chinese native speaker, do compounds like 摆有, 堆有, 种有, 坐有 (which never appear in dictionaries) strike you as creative constructions?

   • If so: Would you compose them each time afresh, based on context? (For example, thinking of 庭+有树 and deciding to add in 种 to clarify how the tree are in the courtyard or thinking about 车+有人 and deciding to add in 坐 to clarify how the people are in the car)?
   • If not: Does it surprise you that some dictionaries list compounds like 持有, 保有, 抱有 and 育有 but no dictionary lists compounds like 摆有, 坐有, 种有 and 堆有? How would you explain this fact?

Observation:

保有财产; 抱有好感; 怀有敌意; 他俩育有一子; 学校设有音乐课; 杯子留有指纹

Bi-syllabic verbal compounds like those in bold above are sometimes treated as words (insofar as I found them all listed as "entries/lemmas" in at least one dictionary). When they do, they are presented as forming a lexical unit.

However,

桌上摆有一卷书; 屋中堆有一百袋大米; 庭中种有几棵树; 车上坐有四人; 桌上放有信件; 床下藏有黄金; 林里搭有帐篷; 城内通有地铁; 东北流有福溪

Bi-syllabic verbal compounds like these are not recorded in any dictionary, although they are similarly-formed and otherwise unexceptional. When pressed, people simply describe them as serial verb constructions.

Problem:

Chinese grammars describe many types of serial verb constructions, but NEVER in the V+有 pattern. Chinese dictionaries rarely if ever list any of the above V+有 compounds as words, as observed above. So how are we to analyse these compounds?

Morphologically, they do seem perfectly good candidates for word-hood but, syntactically, they could also be described as resultative constructions of one form or another.

Questions:

1. Do you think they are all simply collocations of verbs arranged in a resultative (or other?) construction?

2. If not (and so you think some of them are words), are there any criteria we can use to explain why some are to be excluded from word-hood?

3. If you're a Chinese native speaker, do compounds like 摆有, 堆有, 种有, 坐有 (which never appear in dictionaries) strike you as creative constructions?

   • If so: Would you compose them each time afresh, based on context? (For example, thinking of 庭+有树 and deciding to add in 种 to clarify how the tree are in the courtyard or thinking about 车+有人 and deciding to add in 坐 to clarify how the people are in the car)?
   • If not: Does it surprise you that some dictionaries list compounds like 持有, 保有, 抱有 and 育有 but no dictionary lists compounds like 摆有, 坐有, 种有 and 堆有? How would you explain this fact?

保有财产; 抱有好感; 怀有敌意; 育有一子; 设有音乐课; 留有指纹

Bi-syllabic verbal compounds like these (in bold) are words: they form a lexical unit; they are used as independent lexemes; they are lexicographically counted as lemmas/entries in all dictionaries.

桌上摆有一卷书; 屋中堆有一百袋大米; 庭中种有几棵树; 车上坐有四人; 桌上放有信件; 床下藏有黄金; 林里搭有帐篷; 城内通有地铁; 东北流有福溪

Bi-syllabic verbal compounds like these, however, are not recorded as words in any dictionary, although they are similarly-formed and otherwise unexceptional. When pressed, people describe them as just normal instances of serial verb constructions - but are they really?

Syntactically, they seem perfectly good candidates for word-hood, and yet they're not. So I wonder:

1. Are there any lexicographical/grammatical criteria we can use to explain why that second set of compounds (and other compounds like them) are to be excluded from word-hood?
2. Leaving aside academic criteria, how would any native-level Chinese speaker here describe their intuitive feeling about those non-dictionary words (摆有, 堆有, 种有, 坐有, etc)?
   • Do they strike you as creatively constructed phrases?
     • If so, do you compose them each time afresh, perhaps in agreement with any preceding noun? (For example, thinking of 庭+有树 and deciding to add in 种 to clarify how the tree are in the courtyard or thinking about 车+有人 and deciding to add in 坐 to clarify how the people are in the car)?
   • If not: Do they strike you as normal compound words that you pick in your head as a bound unit, no different to other frequently-used words like 抱有 or 保有?
     • If so, does it surprise you that all dictionaries list words like 持有, 保有, 抱有 and 育有 but no dictionary lists words like 摆有, 坐有, 种有 and 堆有? How would you explain this fact?

Observation:

保有财产; 抱有好感; 怀有敌意; 他俩育有一子; 学校设有音乐课; 杯子留有指纹

Bi-syllabic verbal compounds like those in bold above are sometimes treated as words (insofar as I found them all listed as "entries/lemmas" in at least one dictionary). When they do, they are presented as forming a lexical unit.

However,

桌上摆有一卷书; 屋中堆有一百袋大米; 庭中种有几棵树; 车上坐有四人; 桌上放有信件; 床下藏有黄金; 林里搭有帐篷; 城内通有地铁; 东北流有福溪

Bi-syllabic verbal compounds like these are not recorded in any dictionary, although they are similarly-formed and otherwise unexceptional. When pressed, people simply describe them as serial verb constructions.

Problem:

Chinese grammars describe many types of serial verb constructions, but never in the V+有 pattern. Chinese dictionaries rarely if ever list any of the above V+有 compounds as words. So what are they?

Morphologically, they do seem perfectly good candidates for word-hood but, syntactically, they could also be described as resultative constructions of one form or another.

Question:

So I wonder,

1. Do you think they are all simply collocations of verbs arranged in a resultative (or other?) construction?

2. If you think some of them are words, are there any criteria we can use to explain why the others are to be excluded from word-hood?

3. If you're a Chinese native speaker, do compounds like 摆有, 堆有, 种有, 坐有 (which never appear in dictionaries) strike you as creative constructions?

   • If so: Would you compose them each time afresh, based on context? (For example, thinking of 庭+有树 and deciding to add in 种 to clarify how the tree are in the courtyard or thinking about 车+有人 and deciding to add in 坐 to clarify how the people are in the car)?
   • If not: Does it surprise you that some dictionaries list compounds like 持有, 保有, 抱有 and 育有 but no dictionary lists compounds like 摆有, 坐有, 种有 and 堆有? How would you explain this fact?