都,也

[nipponman]

Hello,

I know that both of these can be used interchangeably in the 連...都,也 construction and my questions revolve around that fact.

1.What is the change in nuance? I.e. when would you use one and not the other, or are they completely interchangeable (unlikely)

2. What is the connotative meaning of 也 in this construction? It is hard to imagine it as meaning "also".

3.How would you say it when you include a topic before a verb as well the 連...都 construction. For example, I know you can say:日本﹐中國﹐台灣我都不去過。But how would you indicate both the "even" construction and the inclusion construction in a sentence, like this: "Even I have not been to Japan, China, and Taiwan!"?

would you say:日本﹐中國﹐台灣連我也都不去過嘛﹗?

[Quest]

Use 没/没有 instead of 不, as in "have not".

就连我也没去过日本、中国、和台湾。

就连我都没去过日本、中国、和台湾。

就连我也都没去过日本、中国、和台湾。

I think they are interchangeable.

就 is optional but adding it sounds better.

[nipponman]

Use 没/没有 instead of 不, as in "have not".

Oh yeah, oops

就连我都没去过日本、中国、和台湾。

就连我也都没去过日本、中国、和台湾。

ok, my book says that when you use 都 in this function, it has to be put before the verb because it is a topic. But you put it after the verb, so I assume there is no difference?

[Quest]

ok, my book says that when you use 都 in this function, it has to be put before the verb because it is a topic. But you put it after the verb, so I assume there is no difference?

Which verb? I thought 去 was the verb?

[nipponman]

yeah, 去 is the verb, and in your sentence

就连我也都没去过日本、中国、和台湾。

日本、中国、和台湾 all come after the verb, not before.

[Quest]

日本、中国、和台湾 all come after the verb, not before

ok, my book says that when you use 都 in this function, it has to be put before the verb because it is a topic. But you put it after the verb, so I assume there is no difference?

so...

[place holder]

[nipponman]

so...

Ok, let's try this again. My book says the way you put your sentences is incorrect, grammatically. 就连我也都没去过日本、中国、和台湾。 is grammatically incorrect.

Is this how it would be said seeing as it is wrong!?日本、中国、和台湾 must come before 去as in 日本、中国、和台湾我也都没去过 would be better (I guess, that is why I'm asking)

[Quest]

Okay, lets clear this up:

my book says that when you use 都 in this function, it has to be put before the verb because it is a topic. But you put it after the verb, so I assume there is no difference?

I didn't and I don't see how 都 can be put after 去。

Secondly,

Ok, let's try this again. My book says the way you put your sentences is incorrect, grammatically. 就连我也都没去过日本、中国、和台湾。 is grammatically incorrect.

Is this how it would be said seeing as it is wrong!?日本、中国、和台湾 must come before 去as in 日本、中国、和台湾我也都没去过 would be better (I guess, that is why I'm asking)

日本、中国、和台湾我都没去过。

If you take away 连, this construction is okay, but it no longer means Even I....

You can say ”连日本、中国、和台湾我也没去过“, but the meaning changes to "Even Japan, China, and Taiwan [are places where] I haven't visited." vs. "Even I have not been to Japan, China, and Taiwan." The stress is now on the three places instead of on "I". Also this construction sounds somewhat incomplete.

Placing 日本、中国、和台湾 after the verb 去 is grammatically correct, however, placing them before 去 is often not.

What does your book say exactly? Can you quote it?

[nipponman]

First, I realize that where your confusion may stem from.

my book says that when you use 都 in this function, it has to be put before the verb because it is a topic. But you put it after the verb, so I assume there is no difference?

You're right, I was mistaken when I said "it". I meant 日本、中国、和台湾 should be put before the verb, not 都. "Object" is the word I was going for, object. (though this should have been obvious from my suggestion:)

Anyway,

My book only refers to the use of 都 here, but it says, "都 can also be used to indicate that the VP [verb phrase] is true for the entire object. In order for 都 to refer to the object, the object must occur before the VP as a 'topic'..."

and then it goes on to give the following example 日本﹐中國 ﹐我都去過 。

and then goes to show a grammatically incorrect example (for contrast) 我都去過日本﹐中國 . My question invovles 連. Since this sentence means, "I have been to both Japan and China." I want to expand this to, "Even I have been to both Japan and China" or "Even I haven't been to both Japan and China."

Hope that clears it up.

[Quest]

and then it goes on to give the following example 日本﹐中國 ﹐我都去過 。

and then goes to show a grammatically incorrect example (for contrast) 我都去過日本﹐中國 . My question invovles 連. Since this sentence means, "I have been to both Japan and China." I want to expand this to, "Even I have been to both Japan and China" or "Even I haven't been to both Japan and China."

Hope that clears it up.

Your text book is correct. You are confusing 都 with 連。。。都

They are two different 都s, and the latter really means 也(even, also), while the former is the "all inclusive" marker.

我都去過日本﹐中國。 is incorrect because 都 must be used with more than one antecedents. So, adding more companions to 我, e.g. 他跟我都去過日本和中國。would correct it.

日本﹐中國 ﹐我都去過 。is correct because the antecedents of 都 become 日本 and 中國。

連。。。(也)都/也 is totally different. 連我都 and 連日本和中國我都 are also different.

連我都去過日本和中國 means Even I have been to Japan and China.

連日本和中國我都去過 means I have been to [many places], even Japan and China.

Since you asked for "Even I have been to...." You should use 連我都 and place 日本和中國 after 去。

Hope that helps.

[nipponman]

Ok, I understand that 都 is the all inclusive marker, so that brings me to my original question of how to intergrate this 都 with the other 都 of 連...都 .

Since you asked for "Even I have been to...." You should use 連我都 and place 日本和中國 after 去。

I am trying to topicalize the 日本和中國 and use the 連...都 expression. And according to my book you cannot topicalize 日本和中國 if they are after the verb, they must be before the verb. So putting them after the verb doesn't fit. I want to say, "Even I (連...都) haven't been to both (都 ) China and Japan." not just, "Even I haven't been to China and Japan."

[Quest]

You are creating awkward constructions 日本和中國[語助/pause]連我都去過， (難道你沒去過嗎？)

That's very Japanese style, but I guess it would sound okay in certain situations.