'That' in Mandarin

Language Learning Chinese
1

We’ve got a few different senses of ‘that’ in English, but I haven’t found any translation for one of these.

‘That’ can be an empty complementizer, which doesn’t map back to any Mandarin term, as when we say: “I wish [that] you would come.” (我希望妳會來。wo3xi1wang4ni3hui4lai2.)
‘That’ can mean ‘because,’ so we can use 因為 for it, as when we say: “I am very glad that you came.” (我很高興因為妳來了。wo3hen3gao1xing4yin1wei4ni3lai2le5.)

Then there’s this:
‘That’ can also mean ‘consequently,’ but still functions as a complementizer, as when we say: “You were so sick that you couldn’t come.”

Do we just use the adverb 就 for this, nothing at all, or is there a matching complementizer?

2

[quote=“ehophi”]We’ve got a few different senses of ‘that’ in English, but I haven’t found any translation for one of these.

‘That’ can be an empty complementizer, which doesn’t map back to any Mandarin term, as when we say: “I wish [that] you would come.” (我希望妳會來。wo3xi1wang4ni3hui4lai2.)
‘That’ can mean ‘because,’ so we can use 因為 for it, as when we say: “I am very glad that you came.” (我很高興因為妳來了。wo3hen3gao1xing4yin1wei4ni3lai2le5.)

Then there’s this:
‘That’ can also mean ‘consequently,’ but still functions as a complementizer, as when we say: “You were so sick that you couldn’t come.”

Do we just use the adverb 就 for this, nothing at all, or is there a matching complementizer?[/quote]

Your first example is how nominalization grammar is formed in English. There is no such a thing in Chinese grammar.

See definition of nominalization below:
“Definition for nominalization:
Web definitions:
In linguistics, nominalization is the use of a verb, an adjective, or an adverb as the head of a noun phrase, with or without morphologi…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominalization”

Using Chomsky’s transformational grammar, you can divide you full sentence: “I wish [that] you would come.” into two kernel sentences:
I wish that.
You would come.

            "that you would come" is then the grammatical form of a nominalization usage in English.

In Chinese form of nominalization, it is not necessary to have such word to lead the next kernel sentence, therefore there is no direct translation of such usage in Chinese.

3

There is no complementizer “that” in Chinese. You just string the sentences together: “I wish you would come.” In written Chinese you’ll often see a comma where “that” would be in English.

As for sentences like “so A that B”/“too A to B”, sometimes the Chinese use 到 (“to the extent that”), with the addition of 無法 in negative sentences.

辣到跳 So spicy that it makes you jump (spicy to-the-extent-that jump)

病到無法去 “so sick that [he/she] can’t go” = “too sick to go” (sick to-the-extent-that unable-to go")

4

I’m aware of nominalization and the absence of the null complementizer ‘that’ in Mandarin, and in general I know the CP transformation rules for both languages, but thank you both for the recap.

Thanks, Chris, especially, for answering the question. I’ve never seen 到 as a complementizer in any of the literature on the grammar of Mandarin, nor have I caught it in any reading. You mentioned that they sometimes use 到. Are there any similarly frequent complementizers for the consequential sense of ‘that’?

5

My grammar terminology isn’t too good. Can you give an example of the consequential use of that?

6

“Your mama’s so old that her tits squirt powdered milk.”

7

That’s the famous “de number 2”. 得

8

I’ve used “de number 5” for uses as “such that,” as an extent particle. Does the “de number 2” work for consequential CP’s?

9

There is a sort of complementizer, 說.

eg

有些人覺得說(SHUO)他很不盡情理

10

There is a sort of complementizer, 說.

eg

有些人覺得說(SHUO)他很不盡情理[/quote]

I have two questions about this claim:

Does treating 說 as an (often elliptical) complementizer always allow for its presence or absence in complement phrases? That is, in your cited example, could I just as well say, “有些人覺得他很不盡情理？” and remain grammatically coherent? Also, could I insert 說 into every complement phrase, e.g.: “我希望說妳會來。” and still be grammatically coherent?

11

There is a sort of complementizer, 說.

eg

有些人覺得說(SHUO)他很不盡情理[/quote]

I have two questions about this claim:

Does treating 說 as an (often elliptical) complementizer always allow for its presence or absence in complement phrases? That is, in your cited example, could I just as well say, “有些人覺得他很不盡情理？” and remain grammatically coherent? Also, could I insert 說 into every complement phrase, e.g.: “我希望說妳會來。” and still be grammatically coherent?[/quote]

I have no idea WTF a complementizer is, but you’re correct in that you could chuck it in after almost anything like hope, think etc. It’s NOT correct Mandarin though, this is an example of Taiwanese Mandarin. We’re taught to drop the shuo when teaching Chinese in the CSL Teaching classes here.

12

A complementizer is any term in a language which serves to transform whole sentences into something called a complement phrase. Complement phrases can be used as adverb phrases, noun phrases, or noun modifiers.

An English example:
You will go to lunch at some time. (“at some time” is an adverb phrase).
*You will go to lunch when. (“when” is a complementizer).
when you will go to lunch (“when you will go to lunch” is a complement phrase).

He said when he will go to lunch to his boss. (“when he will go to lunch” is a noun phrase)
He told me the time when he will go to lunch. (“when he will go to lunch” is a complement phrase on the noun phrase “the time” - a.k.a. a relative clause)

Complement phrases modify either noun phrases or whole sentences, and sometimes certain complementizers go into each group.

For instance, ‘that’ as a complementizer can be used for noun phrases. (“We know [the fact] that he can’t stand up.”)
The other two are adverbial, and have different semantic meanings (Consequential: “He’s so weak that he can’t stand up.”) (Explanation: “We’re so sad that he can’t stand up.”)

13

Doesn’t sound like they really exist in Chinese. Or they do, but it all just follows the time + action sentence pattern.

I mean this in as non-insulting a way as possible, but do you actually go outside and talk to people? Or chat to your building guard or something? These all seem like very basic sentence structures that you can pick up through conversation, I don’t think I ever really studied them past asking ‘What does that mean?’ when someone else said it.

Quick references though…
你十點就要去吃飯
當他回來你就去吃飯

他跟他老闆講他幾點要去吃飯
他跟我說了他幾點要去吃飯 (not sure on the grammar with this one, because my mandarin’s too TWified)
（台灣國語：他有跟我講他幾點要去吃飯）

14

[quote=“tsukinodeynatsu”]Doesn’t sound like they really exist in Chinese. Or they do, but it all just follows the time + action sentence pattern.

I mean this in as non-insulting a way as possible, but do you actually go outside and talk to people? Or chat to your building guard or something? These all seem like very basic sentence structures that you can pick up through conversation, I don’t think I ever really studied them past asking ‘What does that mean?’ when someone else said it.

Quick references though…
你十點就要去吃飯
當他回來你就去吃飯

他跟他老闆講他幾點要去吃飯
他跟我說了他幾點要去吃飯 (not sure on the grammar with this one, because my Mandarin’s too TWified)
（台灣國語：他有跟我講他幾點要去吃飯）[/quote]

It’s because I talk to people that I have the questions, but make most of my comprehensions by analysis and parsing.

For instance, your translations are literally speaking different:

“他十點就要去吃飯。” --> “You’ll eat [food] at ten o’clock.”
The complement phrase of this sentence is “他幾點就要去吃飯” --> “[at] what time he’ll eat [food].”

“他跟他老闆講他幾點要去吃飯。” --> He said [at] what time he’ll eat [food] to his boss."
“他跟我說了他幾點要去吃飯。” --> He said [at] what time he’ll eat [food] to me."

15

The only thing that changes here by removing the “說” is the register. With “說”, the register is an informal, spoken-language, adolescent-sounding register. Without the 說, it is a neutral register.

16

Well, if you’re speaking Chinese, you ARE speaking different! :laughing: Different language, different set of rules. Not everything matches up to English (and, in fact, most of it doesn’t).

I think that’s where most people get confused and go astray when trying to learn Mandarin, they tend to think that this exists in English and therefore MUST exist in Mandarin.

Once again, I have no idea what on earth you were talking about in your post, though.

17

[quote=“tsukinodeynatsu”][quote=“ehophi”]
For instance, your translations are literally speaking different:
[/quote]

Well, if you’re speaking Chinese, you ARE speaking different! :laughing: Different language, different set of rules. Not everything matches up to English (and, in fact, most of it doesn’t).

I think that’s where most people get confused and go astray when trying to learn Mandarin, they tend to think that this exists in English and therefore MUST exist in Mandarin.

Once again, I have no idea what on earth you were talking about in your post, though.[/quote]

Yes, I’m aware that not every sentence of English bijects every sentence of Mandarin. However, one should recognize that transliterations actually match to completely different sentences, as this avoids to needless confusions about how sentences, phrases, and words of different languages match or don’t match.

Here’s an easy illustration: These are two sentences of arithmetic: -(4 + 7) = -11 and -4 - 7 = -11. Most people insist that “they say the same thing.” That shows a superficial understanding of arithmetic, however. It’s more accurate to say that the two sentences state an equivalent fact in different ways. We could prove the first sentence from the second sentence, and vice versa.

Natural languages do the same thing. Take sentences like, “John hit the road.” and “John beat it.” These don’t “say the same thing,” either. However, they state an equivalent fact in different ways, and we would infer that “John hit the road” implies that “John beat it,” and vice versa.

If you accept this, then you would have to accept that two sentences may offer similar or identical information, but strictly speaking, form unique sentences. Your sentences, however, don’t do that, because we would not (rationally) infer that “He said when he’ll eat [food] to his boss,” implies, “他跟他老闆講他幾點要去吃飯。/ He said at what time he’ll eat [food] to his boss.” Couldn’t I very easily tell you when I’m going to lunch without telling you the time on a clock?

If we can’t translate a sentence to another most literally, then we don’t need to insist that an approximate translation which says something different “says the same thing.” At most, we could say that the two sentences are similar in certain ways.

You’d have to understand what I was talking about in my earlier post to get any meaning out of any further details.

18

The only thing that changes here by removing the “說” is the register. With “說”, the register is an informal, spoken-language, adolescent-sounding register. Without the 說, it is a neutral register.[/quote]

I’ll go with informal and spoken language. Not sure where the adolescent tag comes from because I think I’ve heard plenty of adults use it. Most common usage is probably 他告訴我說… here would need a short pause or an 啊 I think if you deleted the 说

19

[quote=“ehophi”][quote=“tsukinodeynatsu”][quote=“ehophi”]
For instance, your translations are literally speaking different:
[/quote]

Well, if you’re speaking Chinese, you ARE speaking different! :laughing: Different language, different set of rules. Not everything matches up to English (and, in fact, most of it doesn’t).

I think that’s where most people get confused and go astray when trying to learn Mandarin, they tend to think that this exists in English and therefore MUST exist in Mandarin.

Once again, I have no idea what on earth you were talking about in your post, though.[/quote]

Yes, I’m aware that not every sentence of English bijects every sentence of Mandarin. However, one should recognize that transliterations actually match to completely different sentences, as this avoids to needless confusions about how sentences, phrases, and words of different languages match or don’t match.

Here’s an easy illustration: These are two sentences of arithmetic: -(4 + 7) = -11 and -4 - 7 = -11. Most people insist that “they say the same thing.” That shows a superficial understanding of arithmetic, however. It’s more accurate to say that the two sentences state an equivalent fact in different ways. We could prove the first sentence from the second sentence, and vice versa.

Natural languages do the same thing. Take sentences like, “John hit the road.” and “John beat it.” These don’t “say the same thing,” either. However, they state an equivalent fact in different ways, and we would infer that “John hit the road” implies that “John beat it,” and vice versa.

If you accept this, then you would have to accept that two sentences may offer similar or identical information, but strictly speaking, form unique sentences. Your sentences, however, don’t do that, because we would not (rationally) infer that “He said when he’ll eat [food] to his boss,” implies, “他跟他老闆講他幾點要去吃飯。/ He said at what time he’ll eat [food] to his boss.” Couldn’t I very easily tell you when I’m going to lunch without telling you the time on a clock?

If we can’t translate a sentence to another most literally, then we don’t need to insist that an approximate translation which says something different “says the same thing.” At most, we could say that the two sentences are similar in certain ways.

You’d have to understand what I was talking about in my earlier post to get any meaning out of any further details.[/quote]

You are completely confusing me, I’ve had a look at your earlier posts but I’m just not very good at all the grammatical technicalities.

The only other way I can think of of saying ‘he told his boss what time he’d be going to eat lunch’ is 他跟他老闆講他什麼時候要吃飯 （or 何時, of course). It’s not used quite as much as 幾點 though.

20

I do understand the grammatical technicalities, but I don’t think the OP is going to find much of an appreciative audience for that kind of thing around these parts.