# 使我向前倒下



## TheUnitedStatesOfEurope

Hi everyone, 

I found the sentence below on internet:

藤蔓缠住我的脚，使我向前倒下.

Translation:

My foot caught in a creeper and I pitched forward.

I don´t understand the use of 使. 
Is 使 used as a particule in order to express: "the creeper* made me* fall"? 


Many thanks in advance for your Kind help! 
Cheers.


----------



## retrogradedwithwind

You are right. 藤蔓 is the subject of the two clauses.
Btw, I think the sentence will be better without 使。


----------



## brofeelgood

The sentence sounds ok to me.

藤蔓缠住我的脚，*使*我向前倒下.

The creeper caught my legs, and *caused* me to pitch forward.


----------



## Skatinginbc

I agree with Brofeelgood that 藤蔓缠住我的脚*使*我向前倒下 is perfectly grammatical as an isolated sentence.  However, I also agree with retrogradedwithwind that 使 makes that sentence sound unpolished as if it is an excerpt from some clumsy translation works (I mean: Only in translation works will you see such grammatical yet unnatural sentences).


----------



## TheUnitedStatesOfEurope

Great! 

Thanks a lot chaps!


----------



## Skatinginbc

TheUnitedStatesOfEurope said:


> My foot caught in a creeper and I pitched forward.


My translation: 我一腳絆到藤蔓, 摔了一個大馬趴


----------



## SuperXW

I don't know why you guys have problem with the original sentence. It sounds perfect to me, with or without 使. (If the Chinese version is the original one, and the English sentence is its translation.)
The only difference I would say, is that 使 makes the sentence more formal and literate. People seldom use 使 in colloquial speeches.
It gives me the feeling that the sentence is from a literary work.

By the way, as my English is not good, could anyone tell me why doesn't the English sentence need a passive form?
Why "My foot caught in a creeper..." instead of "my foot was caught in a creeper..."?


----------



## yuechu

SuperXW said:


> Why "My foot caught in a creeper..." instead of "my foot was caught in a creeper..."?


I would say "My foot was/got caught in a creeper" if you are starting the sentence with "my foot" (instead of "the creeper").

Sorry if this is off-topic but how do you pronounce the word "藤蔓"? The dictionary I use says it should be teng2man2 but the same dictionary says that 蔓 is pronounced man4 for the meaning "creeper". Are both pronunciations acceptable?


----------



## Skatinginbc

My formal, explanatory style: 藤蔓缠住我的脚, 以致我突然失衡, 向前倒下.
My formal, narrative style: 我脚被藤蔓缠住, 絆了個倒栽蔥.
My literary style: 藤蔓絆脚, 害我撲跌於地.


SuperXW said:


> Why "My foot caught in a creeper..." instead of "my foot was caught in a creeper..."?


Intransitive: to become held, entangled, or fastened.  "My foot caught in a creeper and I fell to the ground." (Harper's New Monthly Magazine, Volume 24, edited by Henry Mills Alden, 1862)
Transitive: to cause to become hooked, entangled, or fastened.
"I walked by and my coat caught on the hook" = "I walked by and my coat got caught on the hook"


baosheng said:


> how do you pronounce the word "藤蔓"?


teng2man4


----------



## brofeelgood

SuperXW said:


> Why "My foot caught in a creeper..." instead of "my foot was caught in a creeper..."?



I agree with baosheng on this one - "My foot *was/got* caught in a creeper". I wouldn't leave out the "was/got".

Edit: I stand corrected. Skater is right regarding the intransitive form of catch.


----------



## Skatinginbc

Google search:
"My foot caught in" (35,000) vs. "My foot was caught in" (22,400)
"My foot caught in a creeper" (3,990) vs. "My foot was caught in a creeper" (0)
"My coat caught in" (2,690) vs. "My coat was caught in" (3)
"My sleeve caught in" (1,600) vs. "My sleeve was caught in" (787)

Although both structures are OK, the intransitive form seems to be slightly favored, perhaps for the reason of brevity.


----------



## brofeelgood

Hmm, I'm not sure I would draw the same conclusion. After all, "My foot caught in" would include "got my foot caught in", "had my foot caught in", "with my foot caught in" etc. Taking those out would result in less hits, I'm sure.

And certain phrases sound downright weird without be/got, e.g.
- They made a wrong turn and got caught in traffic. 
- They made a wrong turn and caught in traffic. 
- They made a wrong turn and caught heavy traffic. (used as a transitive verb)


----------



## Skatinginbc

brofeelgood said:


> "My foot caught in" would include "got my foot caught in", "had my foot caught in", "with my foot caught in" etc. Taking those out would result in less hits, I'm sure.


You are right.  I failed to consider that.  And "they caught in traffic" does sound weird.


----------



## SuperXW

Thank you for your explanations on "caught".


baosheng said:


> The dictionary I use says it should be teng2man2 but the same dictionary says that 蔓 is pronounced man4 for the meaning "creeper". Are both pronunciations acceptable?


I remember our middle school teacher used to tell us it should be man2 in certain occasions, but none of us really spoke like that...


Skatinginbc said:


> My formal, explanatory style: 藤蔓缠住我的脚, 以致我突然失衡, 向前倒下.
> My formal, narrative style: 我脚被藤蔓缠住, 絆了個倒栽蔥.
> My literary style: 藤蔓絆脚, 害我撲跌於地.


We have numerous ways to express a same meaning, don't we? That's the beauty of language.
To me, the original sentence is good and common enough, and to be honest, I don't see why we need to explain 突然失衡, and how 倒栽葱 is formal (maybe you meant informal?).


----------



## Skatinginbc

SuperXW said:


> I don't see why we need to explain 突然失衡


藤蔓缠住我的脚, 害我跌了一跤 ==> 用帶有主觀情緒的「害」字是自然的, 因為受害者是說話者本身.  若選擇無情緒的「使」或「以致」就顯得不自然, 除非是在某一正式場合(e.g., 法庭上), 說話者在解釋事件的來龍去脈時, 欲擺出一副客觀中立的態勢. 
「突然失衡」看似囉嗦, 其實反應的就是說話者在對動作解剖, 裝出一副客觀科學的姿態.


SuperXW said:


> how 倒栽葱 is formal (maybe you meant informal?).


「倒栽葱」見於《西遊記》, 《蕩寇志》, 魯迅 《故事新編·鑄劍》等著名小說的正式敘事部分, 而非口語對白部分.  其亦可見於新聞標題, 如《華視新聞網》「機車對撞180°翻轉 罕見倒栽蔥」.


----------



## SuperXW

baosheng said:


> The dictionary I use says it should be teng2man2 but the same dictionary says that 蔓 is pronounced man4 for the meaning "creeper". Are both pronunciations acceptable?


I just saw that some websites and dictionaries even mark it wan4 or wan3...Nevertheless, man4 remains the most common pronunciation among people.



Skatinginbc said:


> 藤蔓缠住我的脚, 害我跌了一跤 ==> 用帶有主觀情緒的「害」字是自然的, 因為受害者是說話者本身.  若選擇無情緒的「使」或「以致」就顯得不自然, 除非是在某一正式場合(e.g., 法庭上), 說話者在解釋事件的來龍去脈時, 欲擺出一副客觀中立的態勢.
> 「突然失衡」看似囉嗦, 其實反應的就是說話者在對動作解剖, 裝出一副客觀科學的姿態.


如果是表达主观情绪，装出某种态度，当然可以你那样说啦，原句不是没有带这些情绪态度么……
我没法统计出网上有多少“物品/环境+使我如何”的句子，太多了吧……文学名著中我相信也比比皆是。为了不改换“藤蔓”这个主语，可以故意用“使”字句，也不累赘，怎么就unpolished了……


Skatinginbc said:


> 「倒栽葱」見於《西遊記》, 《蕩寇志》, 魯迅 《故事新編·鑄劍》等著名小說的正式敘事部分, 而非口語對白部分.  其亦可見於新聞標題, 如《華視新聞網》「機車對撞180°翻轉 罕見倒栽蔥」.


你再跟我提几百年前的半文半白小说还有迅哥还有新闻哈！提起我就有气！鲁迅的文字最多“创意”了！无论是古文还是现代文都难以解释的地方比比皆是，他写出来的就叫formal？《西游记》、《荡寇志》都是当年的流行小说吧？且不说过了几百年了，我怎么觉得它们全书的语言风格就是informal？当年的文言文才算formal吧？难道古典文学里面的字句全是formal？还有新闻标题，那是为了吸引读者，知道什么叫“标题党”么……你倒是在法律或商业文件里找个“倒栽葱”出来啊？
我觉得我们对formal/informal定义完全不同……我理解formal是法律、官方或商业文件使用的语言风格，而文学作品则必须formal、informal夹杂使用，那才有趣。写书当然可以用口语风格，有人说话也爱用书面语，这我们都知道吧。


----------



## Skatinginbc

「倒栽葱」不是"日常與朋友對話的普通用語" (colloquialism), 而是用於公開場合 (situations that involve a passive audience, often strangers 面對陌生聽眾或讀者), 如書籍寫作，新聞報導，廣播演說等.  Formal register 不等於 neutral register (non-emotional and factual, e.g., technical writings). 要是我的定義和看法與你的不同, 就不同唄, 別氣.


SuperXW said:


> 怎么就unpolished了


Unpolished: The bomb broke the windows.
Polished: The blast shattered the windows (Reason: "blast" and "shattered" are far more descriptive than "bomb" and "broke"). 
Unpolished: 使我向前倒下. 
Polished: 害我撲個倒栽蔥 (Reason: "害", "撲", and "倒栽蔥" are far more descriptive than "使", "向前" and "倒下").


> 怎么就unnatural了


Natural: 藤蔓缠住我的脚, 使我(的脚)動彈不得
Unnatural: 藤蔓缠住我的脚, 使我(的身體)向前移動(e.g., 倒下). ==> 身體前移另有其因, 非藤蔓缠脚所致.  跌了一跤還說得如此中立無情緒, 本身就是一種不自然.  我就是覺得「藤蔓缠住我的脚, 使我向前倒下」很突兀, 要是我的看法與你的不同, 就不同唄, 別氣.


----------



## SuperXW

不同。我继续吃冰棍去。


----------



## Skatinginbc

看你吃冰棍吃上了癮, 使我也想吃一根 (good) vs. 你吃冰棍吃上了癮, 使我也想吃一根 (strange)
失我焉支山，使我嫁婦無顏色 (good) vs. 漢奪焉支山，使我嫁婦無顏色 (strange).
冰棍含有大量糖和添加劑, 會使人吃上癮 (good) vs. 冰棍含有大量糖和添加劑, 使我吃上癮 (strange) vs. 冰棍含有大量糖和添加劑, 使我吃上了癮 (good).
藤蔓缠住我的脚, 使我向前倒下 (strange) vs. 藤蔓缠住我的脚, 使我向前倒了下去 (good).


----------



## fyl

我也觉得「藤蔓缠住我的脚，使我向前倒下」是翻译腔，不过我觉得「倒栽葱」是informal
另外「藤蔓」在《现代汉语词典》里的读音是teng2wan4 （虽然我也读man4）。


----------



## TheUnitedStatesOfEurope

Skatinginbc, 我不明白得很清楚 : 於地 in 害我撲跌於地. 

According to http://www.yellowbridge.com/chinese/dictionary.php :


於: wū
(literary) Oh!; Ah!


地: de
-ly; structural particle: used before a verb or adjective, linking it to preceding modifying adverbial adjunct


  And by the way, why is 害 at the beginning and before 我 ? 

Thanks a lot!


----------



## Skatinginbc

於 "to" + 地 "the ground" ==> 於地 "to the ground".


TheUnitedStatesOfEurope said:


> why is 害 at the beginning and before 我 ?


害我撲跌於地 is not a complete sentence; it is merely a predicate.  害 is a transitive verb, which goes before the object (我).


----------



## M Mira

TheUnitedStatesOfEurope said:


> Skatinginbc, 我不明白得很清楚 : 於地 in 害我撲跌於地.
> 
> According to http://www.yellowbridge.com/chinese/dictionary.php :
> [...]


You're looking at the ones with the wrong tones: you should be looking for the entries pronounced yú and dì. Also that dictionary seems to be in Simplified Chinese but Skatinginbc (and I) type in Traditional Chinese. In SC, the prepositional meanings of 於 has been transferred to a simpler homophone 于.


----------



## SuperXW

TheUnitedStatesOfEurope said:


> Skatinginbc, 我不明白得很清楚 : 於地 in 害我撲跌於地.
> 
> According to http://www.yellowbridge.com/chinese/dictionary.php :
> 
> 於: wū
> (literary) Oh!; Ah!
> 地: de
> -ly; structural particle: used before a verb or adjective, linking it to preceding modifying adverbial adjunct
> 
> And by the way, why is 害 at the beginning and before 我 ?


Apparently your dictionary cannot choose the correct pronunciation and meaning for you if you just input the two characters and look for the simplified explanations it popped up.
If you clicked 於 and 地 separately it will take you to the comprehensive list, in which the fitted explanations for our context can be found.
The simplified explanations are just the first pronunciation and meaning for each character, whatever it is. All other possibilities are abandoned.

害 in Skatinginbc's sentence is much like 使. It also has function and meaning of "make", just it has to lead to a "harmful" result.

You see, I had some disagreements with Skatinginbc (posted in Chinese) in his choices of words. But there wasn't anything wrong with his sentences. The argument was about the style and purpose.
Basically, I think his style was often too antique or bookish which may be perfect for teaching classic literature, but not good for practical Chinese learners. I don't suggest you study 害我撲跌於地 too much just like I don't think every language learner have to start from Bible or Shakespeare, unless those are what you want to study. Otherwise you should know that people no longer talk or write in those ways.

I'd rather point out that 我不明白得很清楚 is not correct. You should say: 我不是很明白 or 我不是很清楚. 明白 and 清楚 are synonyms in Chinese (both "clear"), so you can't say 不明白得很清楚. Or maybe you wanted to say 我理解得不是很清楚 (I don't clearly understand.)


----------

