[quote=“Chris”][quote=“shengmar”]I fully agree to what you say.
But the fact is the Chinese hasn’t prduced a proper Grammar for herself. The grammar book the Chinese are using are not Chinese but English. So I don’t think it is a good idea for people to use the present grammar to learn Chinese.
In the future, if the real Chinese grammar comes out, it will be a great helper like what you have said.[/quote]
I thought Li and Thompson produced a Chinese grammar book, both in English and Chinese.[/quote]
I will try to check it, hoping it is not a Chinese cover but Latin core one.
Check tyhis grammar for me. I am just trying to have a forum debate somewhere else. Many thanks! 謝謝您的留言及感想，網路上與性相關的論壇區眾多，在道德全憑自我詮釋的的現代，網路扮演著一個未分級的傳播者角色，青少年在此環境中，很容易迷失自我，衍生出雙向人格、角色混淆，進而影響現實生活，這對青少年甚至兒童，有一定程度的負面影響，這是需要教育單位及相關業者需要多加規範及重視的。父母、師長（校園）及同才中的學習，是過去青少年求學階段最重要的知識來源，而媒體普及化後，網路給予的是更加強烈的刺激。身為家長的角色，雖無法二十四小時陪在孩子身邊，但是，透過與孩子的溝通，給予正確的性觀念及道德認知之建立，確實有其必要性，若皆依賴學校教育教導，忽略孩子的個別差異，當他有疑問時，沒有得到正確或正面的解答，那這股求知慾，在他的腦中，還是會想辦法去找尋答案，但，答案的正確與否，卻不得而知。（很抱歉，因考量該網站的部份內容，青少年不宜，該網址予以不公開，請見諒。） Is my grammar and syntax OK?
I recently acquired a copy of Y.R. Chao’s Grammar of Spoken Chinese. What a great book! Alas, it’s long out of print in English, the language it was written in. But it’s still available in [url=http://tw.forumosa.com/t/seeking-chinese-grammar/3969/1 translation[/url].
I just need a little clarification on what shengmar is talking about exactly. Surely it isn’t basic grammar terminolgy and concepts.
For example nearly every meaningful utterance contains an explicit or assumed subject. In Chinese this subject is assumed more often than in English. The object however is explicit more often than in English. This is surely useful information for anyone studying Chinese as a second language.
English frequently has distinct noun and verb forms. In Chinese these forms are usually identical.
In Chinese adjectives and adverbs are frequently formed from noun and verbs with “de.”
In Chinese adjective clauses precceed the modified noun whereas in English they follow.
I could keep this up all day pointing out different ways that Chinese can be clearly and accurately explained using English grammatical terms. Chinese may be a different language but it describes the same world and so it is neccesary to have words that represent that world (nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs). These different kinds of words are placed in fairly predicatble positions within a sentence depending upon their relationship to each other. Grammar is just a description of that relationship and the grammar words (prepositions, auxiliary verbs, conjunctions) help to clarify it.
To suggest that Chinese does not have grammar is just plain nonsense and so is the idea that basic English grammatical terminology cannot be effectively used to describe Chinese sentences.
Sorry shengmar but you do call yourself a teacher.
Guess what? The English grammar books you use are Latin grammars as well. English used to be in the same boat as Chinese was 100 years ago, but about 3-400 years ago (I forget when offhand) English intellectuals decided that since Latin had such exquisite grammar it should be used as the rule for English (in as much as it applied, of course). You don’t need a nationalist grammar for the motherland.
Well, that’s less true if you use a lot of different books. As mentioned above, Chinese hasn’t had grammar rules applied to it for as long as English has. Maybe more importantly, so many more non-English speakers have been learning English for longer than non-Chinese speakers learning Chinese. You’re a Chinese teacher, why don’t you write a book?
Take another simple sentence, there is no grammar in any grammar book that I have read that can explain this sentence.
三人行，必有我师，择其善者而从之，择起不善者而改之。[/quote]
Isn’t that Confucius? I haven’t read him yet, but that quote looks familiar. Classical Chinese has a different grammar than the modern language. That’s why even for Taiwanese you use grammar to learn the classical language in high school.
[quote=“fish132132”]hey everyone,
I’m struggling to learn Chinese right now, and I find one of my many problems are all those pesky conj, prepositions and adverbs. I was just wondering if anyone knew of a book I could get in Taiwan that would help me out, or a website that dealt speicifically with all that stuff. thanks so much[/quote]
Fishy, go to Lai Lai Bokstore in Taipei (both stores are near Taida) and buy New Century Chinese-English Dictionary (Learners, Singapore, 2001 [Foreign Language and Teaching, Beijing, 1997]; ISBN: 981-4070-52-1). I think you’ll find it rather helpful. There’s a few such grammatical items not in there that are only in ABC Comprehensive, but not many.
You could probably order New Century from other bookstores (such as Eslite) as I have seen them carry stuff with Lai Lai’s sticker on it (they’re the importer).
I know this post is way out of date, but I can’t resist.
Literally: Three people walk, must existential.v. my master, choose 3rdpers.poss. good nom. conj. follow 3rdpers., choose 3rdpers.poss. neg. good nom. conj. change 3rdpers.
The whole thing is an unmarked conditional (the bane of my Classical Chinese reading ability). So:
“If there are three people walking, there must be my master [among them]; choose what is good and follow it, choose what is bad and correct it.”
It’s not modern Chinese, but it does have pretty straightforward grammar. Verb follows subject (三人行), subject need not be stated if it is obvious, 师 gets modified by 我 because the 1st person here is possessive, 者 nominalizes the subject, etc. To say the sentence has no grammar is highly inaccurate.
Hi Rachel! I get almost the same meaning, but isn’t he talking about the choice of the third person? To me this sentence reads:
“If there are three people walking, there must be my master [and myself among them]; if the third person is good, we will follow him, if he is bad we will change him.”
The reason I think this is more accurate is because 者 refers to a person. The 之 is interesting, I don’t think Modern Chinese would use it like this at the end of a clause, but here I believe it serves as the object pronoun “him”.
Well, it depends on what 其 refers to. I am not that great at pronoun reference in classical Chinese (another one of my weak points). I don’t think that 者 needs to refer to a person. For example, see my favorite passage in the Zhuangzi: [quote]毛嫱丽姬，人之所美也；鱼见之深入
，鸟见之高飞，麋鹿见之决骤，四者孰知天下之正色哉？[/quote] (Sorry for the GB characters – my Chinese input isn’t working right now and I couldn’t find a Big5 copy online.) In this passage, “these which are four” 四者 are clearly not all human.
Instead, 者 nominalizes the subject of a verb. It’s like the difference between “who” and “whom” as nominalizers in English. I see you; I am the one who sees, you are the one whom I see. 者 functions like “who” here, while 所 functions like “whom”. At least, that’s what I was taught – but it’s been quite reliable so far.
No, they had been learning Chinese without a grammar guide. Theere was still grammar, and they learnt that grammar through memorization - which is a stupid way to learn.
[quote=“RachelK”]Well, it depends on what 其 refers to. I am not that great at pronoun reference in classical Chinese (another one of my weak points). I don’t think that 者 needs to refer to a person. For example, see my favorite passage in the Zhuangzi: [quote]毛嫱丽姬，人之所美也；鱼见之深入
，鸟见之高飞，麋鹿见之决骤，四者孰知天下之正色哉？[/quote] (Sorry for the GB characters – my Chinese input isn’t working right now and I couldn’t find a Big5 copy online.) In this passage, “these which are four” 四者 are clearly not all human.
Instead, 者 nominalizes the subject of a verb. It’s like the difference between “who” and “whom” as nominalizers in English. I see you; I am the one who sees, you are the one whom I see. 者 functions like “who” here, while 所 functions like “whom”. At least, that’s what I was taught – but it’s been quite reliable so far.[/quote]
不好意思 好象你对 第二句理解有误 实际上 之 才是句中的宾语。
The character that was originally used for m7 (as in m-知 m7-chai1) has been lost. A variety of solutions have been proposed by modern Taiwanese dictinoary writers and enthusiasts, but no solution has really caught on. I believe the most common solutiosn are just “m7-知-iaN2/m7-知影” and "毋知/毋知影
Given the guidelines set up by the Mandarin Promotion Council for how they will make proposals for standard Taiwanese characters, I believe m7 or 毋 will be the likely choice.
Actually I’ve wondered a few things like that from what little Taiwanese I’ve picked up. Like why not use the same as Cantonese, 係唔係, for that “xi m xi” sounding reading of 是不是? 係 carries the same meaning there as it still does in formal Mandarin, has a close phonetic match (at least if they insist on using Mandarin to carry it across) although it might not in Taiwanese, I don’t know.
Yes, that is about the right sound, but to retain meaning you should write it 是m是, or 是毋是, but certainly not 係唔係.
Another example-- the Taiwanese “tioh-m-tioh” (對不對) should be written “著m著” or “著毋著.”
Remember, the beauty of characters is they can have different pronunciations in different dialects; I like to promote leaving the characters so that they have the right meaning instead of “about the right sound if read in Mandarin.”