1

While I’m on my Chinese learning journey, I faced this sentence : 去飞机场坐汽车,前面上车,飞机场下车。 It supposedly mean (go to the airport by car, then get off at the airport. Actually, I’m not getting the point of 前面上车 being in such a sentence. My question is simply, is the sentence previously mentioned correct grammatically or not. And if, what is the purpose of adding “ 前面上车 “

3
  • 3
    Would you please provide the context ? If the car is in the front, then "前面上车" makes sense. I
    – Nobody
    Jun 29, 2023 at 4:31
  • @Nobody Ok, here is the full conversation: 1- 请问,去飞机场怎么走?2- 去飞机场坐汽车,前面上车,飞机场下车。1- 几点钟我可以到飞机场?2- 两点钟 Jun 29, 2023 at 4:34
  • If it’s supposed to mean “go to the airport by car”, then it’s clearly wrong, because it’s describing how to go there by bus. A bus is still a type of car, after all, and you wouldn’t use 坐 if you were talking about driving in your own car. Jun 30, 2023 at 11:09

9 Answers 9

2

is the sentence previously mentioned correct grammatically or not. And if, what is the purpose of adding “ 前面上车.

No, but it is understandable that he was giving you verbal instructions on how to get to the airport by bus.

  • 去飞机场"(你)得"坐汽车,"在"前面("的車站")上车,"直到"飞机场"再"下车。You need to take the bus to the airport. Get on the bus at the station in the front [with his hand pointing to the bus station], and get off the bus until it reaches the airport [usually, the airport is the end of the bus trip].
2

去飞机场坐汽车,前面上车,飞机场下车 正常情况下,中国人对话不会是这样的,可以认为是病句。

比较容易理解的对话:

请问,去飞机场怎么走?

去飞机场的话你需要坐汽车(或者你得坐汽车)才能到那,在前面的候车点等候上车,等你到了飞机场就下车。

1

I would consider changing it this way would be better: 坐汽车去飞机场,然后在飞机场下车。Where 坐汽车 is put first because normal conversations omit the subject (你). Which was originally 你坐汽车去飞机场. But to make it much easier you start with 坐汽车.

Now, you sit on the car to go to where (去哪里)? Ans: to go to the airport (去飞机场).

然后 = then,

Q: At where are you getting off the car? A: at the airport. So the prepositional phrase is put first. Now, the sentence will be "坐汽车去飞机场,然后在飞机场下车".

1

去飞机场坐汽车, = (如果要)坐汽车去飞机场 = To ride a car to the airport

前面上车,= (去)前面上车 = (go) to the front and get on a car

飞机场下车 = (到)了飞机场(就)下车 = get off at the airport

meaning it goes to the airport directly, no need to change to another transport

"car"(汽车) here is likely referring to "taxi"(出租汽車) because it said "ride a car" not "drive a car"

1

Seems very weird to tell someone they must first get in the car and then, when they arrive, they should get off. Unless the person has mental difficulties!

怎么走 means how to get there, the street directions.

请问去机场需要乘坐什么交通?
Could you tell me please how I can get to the airport by public transport?
去机场可以坐打的、公共汽车或者地铁。
To get to the airport you may take a taxi or a bus, or catch the metro.

1

去飛機場坐汽車,前面上車,飛機場下車 is not necessarily the best grammatically, however it is totally understandable and acceptable.

As for 前面上車, at its most basic it means "get on the vehicle in front (of us/you/it etc from context)".

To formally address your question's main point: this phrase itself is totally grammatically correct for that type of instruction. Its not a common phrase in general though. (as others mentioned how often do you need to specify which vehicle to get on? pointing to many different buses or trains at a station could be a good reason to use this type of phrase).

If it helps this is how I would breakdown your provided context in full:


Excuse me, how can I get to the airport?

You (should) go there by vehicle, get on the vehicle in front of you, then get off at the airport (stop/station etc).

What time would I be able to get there (using the method discussed)?

You would get there at 2.


Hope this helps :)

1

At first it sounded like an abnormal sentence.

However, depending on the physical context it can make sense. For example, if both the speaker and listener are standing on a sidewalk, and there is a bus stop a small distance ahead of them. It makes sense to say "前面上车", as it's specifying where they can get on a bus to the airport.
(There may not even be a bus yet, but that's the right place for getting on a bus)

1

I don't see any grammar mistake on this sentence. Let me break it grammatically.

去飞机场坐汽车 (Taking car(texi) at airport)

This statement is grammarly correct. Basically could assume the Subject is "I" or "You" depend on the scenario.

I assume this statement would means “Taking car(texi) at airport". It is NOT "Go to airport by car"(坐汽车去飞机场).

前面上车 (get the ride forward/go to front and ride the car)

This statement is grammarly correct. I feel you might be actually nearby the texi station/waiting room.

飞机场下车 (get off at Airport)

This statement is grammarly correct.

Well, in Chinese, we usually hide the subject. So in grammar, the statement is correct.

0

by evaluating at the context you provided before from @Nobody's answer

Ok, here is the full conversation: 1- 请问,去飞机场怎么走?2- 去飞机场坐汽车,前面上车,飞机场下车。1- 几点钟我可以到飞机场?2- 两点钟

I think this is grammatically wrong, but the semantic (meaning) still understandable. Since the questioner at the beginning wants to know how to get to the airport, the respondent wants to answer like "go to the airport by a car, firstly ride a car, and then drop off at the airport.". This can be fixed like this:

去飞机场坐汽车,首先上车, 然后到飞机场下车

'首先' shou3 xian1 is like "firstly..." and combine it with conjunction '然后' ran2 hou4 means "then...". Here we replace '前面' with '首先' because '前面' is for physical position, like '旁边 后面 左面 右面 斜对面' etc...

for the '上车' you can replace it with '打的' da3 di2 to express "take a taxi", or '骑汽车' qi2 che1 to express "ride a car" (to avoid ambiguity with "ride a bike" '骑车').

hope it helps a lot.

1
  • Edit: Yes I realized another alternative from the @Sausages's answer, it actually depends on the location context as well. If the conversation is being held in somewhere around a bus stop, or some station, then it is possible to say '前面上车'. However to make it more make sense for pointing some location, it is better to add '在' before '前面', which becomes '在前面上车'. So yes, back again to your question, the purpose of 前面 is for pointing physical location. Jul 18, 2023 at 12:33

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.