Verb+Dummyobject

[buzhongren]

I go into a University and buy one of those idiot plastic study guides about Mandarin grammar. It contains the summary of 'important' Mandarin grammar. It is a couple of folded leaf pages. I recognize most of the 'grammar' but I came across Verb+DummyObject which I havent seen before. I checked my other comprehensive grammar books and couldnt find a discussion. I lifted the following examples from here. Essentially the Verb+DummyObject is required if there is no other object. In most cases there is an direct object or aspect so you can drop the DummyObject with the Verb. I wonder why so little discussion perse in the grammar texts.

Verbs with Dummy Objects:

chi-fan ‘eat-rice’ = ‘eat’

pao-bu ‘run-step’ = ‘run’

Simple Sentence with no object:

Wo chifan I eat

Wo paobu I run

Simple Sentence with direct object:

Wo chi pingguo I eat apples

Wo pao shang-dian I run from shop to shop

xiele,

Jim

[trien27]

Verbs with Dummy Objects:

chi-fan ‘eat-rice’ = ‘eat’

pao-bu ‘run-step’ = ‘run’

Simple Sentence with no object:

Wo chifan I eat

Wo paobu I run

Simple Sentence with direct object:

Wo chi pingguo I eat apples

1. Think like this "Chinese grammar ≠ English grammar" & "English grammar ≠ Chinese grammar"

2. Think "Most words in Mandarin are disyllabic". So if there's a verb, something must be added in order to make it "two syllables".

Check #2 above:

chi-fan ‘eat-rice’ = ‘eat’

pao-bu ‘run-step’ = ‘run’

chi = eat, fan = rice, so chi-fan is only "to have rice", not to eat because "chi" = to eat. "fan" is only put there arbitrarily so it'll comply with grammatical rules of Mandarin.

Same deal with "pao-bu".

Calling these arbitrary words "dummy objects" might or might not be incorrect/inaccurate, depending on who(m) you ask.

wo chi pingguo? What happened to "wo chi fan"? Depending on what & how the question is asked, it's correct to say "wo chi fan" meaning 'I'm having ["fan" here = a meal: whether that meal is "breakfast","lunch", or "dinner" will depend on the time of day that it's asked.]' If it's lunch time, and a friends asks you "Ni chi shenme?" You can say "wo chi fan [plus other details, such as what you want or don't want on the rice]."

[LiScing]

I don't think this is necessary for all verbs.

我們進出。

means "We go inside" or "Let's go inside." There is no direct object or dummy object.

Another common statement goes something like

都不要吵嗎。

It has no direct object or dummy object.

Another sentence with no direct or dummy object:

我吃完了。

Essentially the Verb+DummyObject is required if there is no other object.

I think that is not the correct conclusion.

[Shi Tong]

A lot of these "dummy object" words are litterally words on their own (rather than a word with something tacked on the end).. for example- Chi1fan4 is a single ci, not two seperated words- and chi1fan4 is a word which means to eat a meal (chi1fan4 le doesn't mean "eat rice now" it means "dinner is ready, come and eat a whole meal).

I think there is an interesting discussion to be had on double barrelled words which have a second zi without any particular effect on the meaning of the word, but it's probably a seperate discussion. One of my favorites being "忘记" or "forget", with the first word meaning "forget" and the other meaning "remember".. in other words- I forgot to remember.

It's a bit like one of those positive negative negation ci's, but not the same IMO, because it only means forget, it doesn't end in a concept (like 买卖 or 大小).

Anyway, enough rambling.

[buzhongren]

Thanks everyone. I was more interested why it doesnt appear in grammar books. In Schaums Chinese Grammar it appears in passing under Obigatory Objects with a couple of examples and no explanation. In Mandarin Chinese A Functional Reference Grammar by Li and Thompson it isnt even mentioned under Verb+Object compounds. It isnt mentioned in any of my college Chinese text books which deal more with speaking than grammar. Essentially Chinese verbs are intransitive which means they dont take objects. This is one way to make them transitive so they do. As I said I wasnt even aware of the structure till I saw it on an idiot cue card. Verb+Object is a bigger deal in Chinese than English.

xiele,

Jim

[creamyhorror]

Essentially Chinese verbs are intransitive which means they dont take objects.

What? How does that follow? The mere fact that those verbs can take dummy objects implies they're transitive, no?

These verb+object combinations are discussed now and then I think. There was a thread containing examples of ci that can be split and have words inserted between, which are basically the same thing you're talking about. That's why we have expressions like 吃完饭、洗个澡、跑了步、睡个大觉，etc.

[Altair]

Thanks everyone. I was more interested why it doesnt appear in grammar books.

I think the answer is simple: no one has been able to figure out a concise and comprehensive explanation for this phenomenon, and it is simply easier to ignore it in general treatments of Mandarin.

I lifted the following examples from here. Essentially the Verb+DummyObject is required if there is no other object.

Explanations like this are common, but not entirely accurate in what they imply. It is true that some of these verbs often have objects that would seem unnecessary in English, and it is also true that these objects tend to disappear when other objects and complements are present. However, I think it is also true that pairs like 吃 and 吃饭 and 跑 and 跑步 are often not really synonymous.

[buzhongren]

Ive found when somebody makes a point about Chinese grammar they always include a chifan example. :rolleyes: If nothing else Chinese grammar tells us literal translations are somewhat ambiguous. Any native speaker most likely doesnt understand the underlying grammar of their language. When asked why something is said a certain way they reply 'that is the way it is'. In my case since I dont have access to native speakers so I do hit the grammar. At first blush DummyObjects seemed straight forward in the link I provided. Obviously there is more than meets the eye like Altair suggested. Verb+Object by definition is transitive. I should have made it more obvious.

xiele,

Jim

[Shi Tong]

I think the most interesting ones are these types:

跳舞 tiào​wǔ​ The reason I like these examples are because the two words have a very similar meaning,

跳 tiào​ jump / hop / skip (a grade) / to leap / to bounce / to beat

舞 wǔ​ to dance / to wield / to brandish

and I think they're used in double barreled words because they denote context. Imagine if we had Chinese where these words were not double barreled- I think it would make it a nightmare of complicated misunderstandings over single zi which dont denote contexts.. no? :blink:

[stelingo]

There is a small section on this in 'Modern Mandarin Chinese Grammar, a Practical Guide' published by Routledge. I quote:

'Open-ended action verbs are typically followed by an obligatory object, a noun phrase that serves as a direct object of the verb. Many open-ended action verbs have a default object, an object that automatically occurs with the verb.

Default objects contribute little or no meaning to the verb + object phrase and are typically not translated into English. When an object with a fuller meaning is used, it replaces the default object.'

It then gives a very small list of such verbs.

说话, 睡觉, 看书, 吃饭, 写字, 画画儿, 唱歌儿, 洗澡,

It goes on to say 'The direct object may be absent when it can be inferred from the context of the sentence.'