User Comments - joeborn

Posted on: Fire in the Hallway!

Thanks, changye.

It appears that I still have quite a bit to learn about 了. From something I thought I learned, for example, I would have thought that 了 made "你别去了" mean "Stop going" as opposed to "Don't go" for "你别去."

Anyway, my question about the expansion sentence remains. Since 了 is needed in the (declarative) sentence 我把衣服都洗了 to avoid a single-character predicate in the 把-object-verb construction, might a native speaker consider to admit of a present ("I wash all the clothes") as well as a perfective ("I've washed all the clothes")? My guess is that the answer is no, but my guesses haven't always been so good.

Posted on: Fire in the Hallway!

The expansion sentences raise a question about John's rule prohibiting a one-character verb in the 把-obj-verb construction.  In the dialog, the construction was 快把火灭了.  My interpretation of John's explanation is that 了 served in that case merely to satisfy the rule against single-character verbs rather than to indicate completion or state change. 

But the expansion sentence 我把衣服都洗了 is translated as "I have washed all the dishes": it has a perfective aspect.  Given John's rule, could this equally validly have been understood as "I wash all the dishes"?

Posted on: Calling an Ambulance

Thanks a lot.

Posted on: Calling an Ambulance

You may also want to check out the January 8, 2008, 請問 episode (http://chinesepod.com/lessons/the-double-了-le-phenomenon) directed to the double-了 phenomenon. The gloss that lesson puts on the construction is not as helpful in the present context as Helen's above, but it sort of reinforces the "now that I've taken the medicine" meaning in contrast simply to "I took some medicine," and it is helpful for some other contexts.

Posted on: Calling an Ambulance

I assume there isn't any difference in literal meaning among (1) the dialog's 你不要死 ni3 bu4 yao4 si3, (2) 不要死 bu4 yao4 si3, (3) 你别死 ni3 bie2 si3, and (4) 别死 bie2 si3, right?  Beyond that, is there any difference in nuance we should be aware of?

Posted on: Foot Therapy

Thanks, changye. Of course, you repeated what John said, but, by putting it in writing, you answered my question, which is whether the word he was using was indeed 說明. Thanks again.

Posted on: Foot Therapy

I agree about the English; I'm afraid I used a too-circuitous way of asking whether the word on the podcast is what I guessed it was, i.e., 说明. (I didn't see it written in any of the materials.)

Posted on: Foot Therapy

MDBG and YellowBridge give the meaning of 说明 as "to explain; to illustrate; explanation; directions; caption"; i.e., they don't include a meaning like indicate, which John gives at 7:39 (hmmm, that sounds biblical, doesn't it?).  I assume this is just an instance where the dictionaries missed one of the common usages, but I bring it up just in case I misunderstood the word Jenny and John used.  It was 说明 (shuo1 ming2), right?

Posted on: Hot Pot Chitchat

changye,

    Thanks.  That didn't directly answer my question, but it was helpful.  What I was trying to get at was whether there was some reason why you couldn't just use 辣的边 rather than include one of the quantitative or demonstrative words of the type you mentioned.

     But I think you may have pointed me toward the answer.  When constructions of the type you list are used, they usually signify a phrase more adverbial than, as I was thinking, nominal?  That is, I was thinking of it as saying that the spicy side is boiling, i.e., that side is the subject, whereas it might have been more helpful for me to think of it as saying that something on the spicy side is boiling.

     Anyway, thanks again.

Posted on: Hang Up and Ride!

Connie,

    Thanks a lot.