的 in its function as a particle is attested in the 四大名著 Four Great Classical Novels, which are written in a vernacular Mandarin-type language, dating from the Ming dynasty. The particle use of 的 is also attested from the Yuan dynasty, when it seems it was adopted for the grammatical particle of the emerging new literary language. Its earliest attestation is ...
This question is really about: " when can we omit the possessive 的 "
的 1.(adjective suffix):
强大勇敢 (strong and brave)
强大勇敢的人 (strong and brave man)
You cannot omit the adjective suffix 的 and write 强大勇敢人
高大 (tall and big)
高大的人 (tall and big man)
You cannot omit the adjective suffix 的 and write 高大人
Adjectives that do not need adjective ...
I think Chinese textbooks should start their 了 sections with this:
了 is not about time.
了 is not about tense.
You are only concerned with 了 as an the aspect marker, aka completed action 了, or perfect aspect 了, so:
"昨天去商店" and "昨天去了商店" are both valid verb phrases. The second one explicitly states that the action was completed, whereas the first one ...
When you want to express possessive relations concerning family members or relatives, you don't need 的.
I have done some searches with different expressions with and without 的, and I see that this rule is not applied consistently.
EDIT: There are ambiguous cases, e.g. 你们孩子 could mean "You children" or "Your children" (with ...
Just to expand on Hugh’s answer a bit.
To understand what’s wrong with ‘我作天去商店.’ standing alone, we could translate it as ‘Yesterday I was going to the shop.’ Speaking English, if you said this and just stopped, the listener would think, well so what?
There are some verbs which are not used with 了 where a time phrase is enough to show past action. For ...
Yes 吧 is used at the end of a question when you already assume the statement to be true.
(modal particle indicating suggestion or surmise)
Whereas had you ended the question with ma (t: 嗎, s: 吗) then it is just a question, no assumption behind it, you are asking because you honestly have no clue.
As for the ...
的: positive response? Not exactly!
The function of 的 is well stated in 漢典:
4 . 助词，用在句末， 表示肯定的语气 ，常与“是”相应：这句话是很对～。
At the end of a sentence, 的 is an auxiliary word, indicating a response with emphasized confidence. It is often used in the "是……的" structure.
I think it's not proper to literally translate 表示肯定的语气 into "indicating a positive response". ...
Generally speaking, 了 following a verb indicates completion, while 了 at the end of a sentence or phrase indicates a change in state (and sometimes other things, 了 is very complicated). A common use of this final 了 is to draw the attention of the listener to the fact that something is now the case (that wasn't previously). In this case 我饿了 is saying: "I'm ...
之 is the wenyan equivalent of Mandarin 的. Here are some examples from a Classical Chinese textbook:
鄰人之父 > 鄰居的老人 ‘an old man who lived next door’
衛國之法 > 衛國的法律 ‘the laws of Wei’
仁義 之 道 > 仁義的 道理 ‘the doctrine of benevolence and righteousness’
Because parts of speech in wenyan are quite flexible, using 之 to link two terms ...
Both are correct for past tense. They have the same meaning, with subtle difference on the point of emphasis.
"我去了商店" lays emphasis on the action "went to the shop", while "我去商店了" lays emphasis on the destination of the action, i.e. "the shop".
So it'll be more natural to use "我去了商店" as the answer to the question asking "what did you do" (你做什么去了), and use "...
But use of exclamative particles is highly informal, and it is advised that they not be used in formal documents or academic papers, unless it is specifically required to do so (such as the case of narrative telling). Some common examples are shown below.
了 le modal particle intensifying ...
了 and 到/著(着) (zháo) serve different functions in sentences.
了 used after verbs implies a sense of "stopped, finished,completed, or done" on the action.
到 and 著(着) used after verbs indicate the result of the action.
I can't really tell the difference between 到 and 著(着), but it seems to me ...
The omission of 的 is not limited to family relationships. For the sake of scientific rigor, let's make a list of all the ways we can talk about a broken car:
Notice that the sentences vary between the mono-character 我 "my" and the multi-character 我們 "our," as well as between the mono-character 車 "...
In a phrase with this construct:
可/太/最 + [adjective/adverb/stative verb] + 了
了 serves as a modal article (rather than tense particle) to express emphasis and is optional.
的 at the end of sentences can be seen in really a lot of cases. Here are just two cases I can think of at the moment:
case 1. 你(是)哪一天出生的？
This question asks about an event which happened in the past. Note it often comes with 是.
If we omit both 是 and 的, it will become 你哪一天出生？This sounds a little weird, because generally the new version means an event to ...
之 and 的 are essentially synonyms for different contexts.
之 is mostly used in set phrases, idioms, proverbs, poems, etc. (Also math with percents and such: 百分*之*百 100 points out of 100. )
的 is more fit for colloquial contexts.
Since 忍耐是幸福之门的一把钥匙 "Patience is the key to the door of happiness" is a phrase, it is fit to use 之.
When 掉 is used as a verb complement (not a verb), it indicates that something disappears, is removed, is disposed of, etc. as the result of an action. Not really "falling" or "missing".
擦不掉：Something can't be removed or got rid of by rubbing or wiping. Maybe it's a stain on your shoes, and you're trying to rub it off with a cloth, but it can'...
I think the key is the usage of 了. In my opinion, 了 here works like a result complement, which indicates the status changed.
Semantically, they(with or without 了) denote the same meaning.
我买 vs 我买了:
我买 is like saying "I will buy" in English.
我买了 is like "I will have/get it bought. The status changed from not bought to bought.
Another example is 我走 vs ...
Both 你去了北京吗 and 你去北京了吗 are possible in practice, but they are used in different situations.
你去了北京吗 is used when you try to confirm the fact that someone really went to Beijing. Let's say you have two friends, Friend A and B. A told you that B has gone to Beijing last week. However, this information surprised you because you didn't expect B would go to ...
Another reason is to avoid using the same word again and again in the sentence. To make it easier to read and understand, in sentences where you get related 的, this adds variety.
is easier to understand than:
Here 了 is used to indicate the completion of the action of 落在房间内.
Here 了 is moved forward and positioned after 在, and that makes 房间内 become the focus point of this setence.
I can't use 地 after the adjective if the adjective is monosyllabic
This is not a grammatical rule. This is an idiomatic rule and mostly for prosody concerns.
All the following expressions are grammatically correct. Only some sounds more natural than the others:
他慢地走 <- sounds unnatural
他很慢地走 <- sounds fine but not idiomatic
他慢慢地走 <- sounds fine ...
Good question, but it's hard to deal with all the issues your examples raise in just one answer: the complexity of this thing is really staggering.
One important thing I think you are missing is that there are TWO kinds of le. This is a frequently made point; one place you can read more about this is Li and Thompson's book, Mandarin Chinese: A Functional ...
I can't for the life of me understand why switching an associative verb to the front forms a question in English. Am I not stupid?
The fact is, in a lot of cases, languages don't follow any kind of logic or reasoning.
If you say 他吃饭了, it's a complete sentence. If you say 他吃了饭, a listener would expect you to tell him what happened next, like 他吃了饭，拍拍肚子就走了。...
I believe that 的 is omitted because it's not in the front of the subjects or objectives and because it's not fluent to use too many "的" in a sentence.
In TangHo's answer the "strong 强大的" and "tall 高的" are also adjectives.
Why did he omit the "的"?
The "的" in "好(的)女儿" is omitted because it's not fluent either.
I don't think it's due to "do not need adjective ...