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 ...
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 ...
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 ...
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 ...
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 ...
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 ...
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 ...
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 "...
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 ...
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 "...
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 ...
You can use 过 to express the past tense.
过 means 过去 (before, a past tense) or 曾经 (something has done already, a perfect tense).
I read a book before.
I have read a book already.
Both 了 and 过 can express something has finished.
If you add 曾(经) or 已(经), it is a perfect tense.
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'...
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.
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 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 the 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 ...
If the form 我看了一本书 is correct then what role is 了 playing here and why does it sound to me like past tense with a not-a-tense-marker indicating tense?
'了' in "我看了一本书" is a [aspect marker] indicating completed action.
我看一本书 = I read a book
In 我看了一本书, the action '看' is completed, which imply 看 is not in present tense but in past tense.
Also, depend on ...
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 ...
Usage of 了 (le)：
A. auxiliary word (助词)
A.1 used after verb or adj to indicate completion. This usage carries the same sense of "Perfect Tenses" in English.
Example: 我已经问了老王 / 人老了，身体差了 / 头发白了 / 这双鞋太小了 / 他打开了窗子
A.2 used at the end of a sentence, or in the middle of sentence but right before a pause(usually a comma), to indicate current situation changed ...
之 is a common way to say ‘him/her/it’ in classical Chinese. It’s usually in the object position, not the subject one though: 殺之 ‘kills him’; 由之 ‘from it’. The use like modern Chinese 的 is different.
其 is actually a possessive pronoun, as in 其妻 ‘his wife’. More generally, it substitutes for ‘noun + 之’.
彼 can be used as a third-person pronoun in ...
The 一把把 here is made up of two different grammatical units:
The first 一把 is the classifier you mention. It is used to modify the action, and means something like "with one grab". It emphasizes that the action happened suddenly. Here are some examples from news websites:
乘客 一把 拉开飞机安全门
A passenger opened a plane's door with one grab.
男子欲跳楼好友 一把 ...
Considering its mathematical context, I recommend this one:
the first remaining 的 cannot be omitted because 具有m个顶点，n着色 modifies the properties of Kr□Ks and the second 的 constructs 是……的诱导子图.
However, our teacher may put it as
(The briefer the better for ...
之 is the classical Chinese counterpart of 的 in modern Chinese
In classical Chinese, writers rarely use compound words if single character words with the same meaning is available.
Notice 的 apply to two characters compound words and 之 apply to single character words.
If you switch the single character words 感 and 事 ...
This is more of an aesthetic / rhythmic issue than a grammatical one. Technically you can keep adding 的 to make a chain as long as you like, but it won't be "nice". It's like saying "that" repeatedly in English, e.g. "the man that ate a dog that ate a fly that watched a cat that liked to browse stack exchange." Grammatically valid but not natural.