# 原本稍显弱势的巫师们的逐渐兴起



## lesaucisson

Hello, 

On this sentence, I would like to know if the subject is 原本稍显弱势的巫师们的 or原本稍显弱势的巫师们的逐渐兴起. 


原本稍显弱势的巫师们的逐渐兴起却越来越受到沙族传统战士的敌视

My translation : we saw that the witches received... (but I'm not sure)

Thank you


----------



## brofeelgood

The subject here is the 逐渐兴起 (gradual rise), and that's what's being viewed with hostility by the Sha warriors.

If the intended subject are the wizards/shamans, then the sentence should read 原本稍显弱势,但正在逐渐兴起的巫师们却越来越受到沙族传统战士的敌视.

General rule: In a statement with the following pattern: AAA 的 BBB 的 CCC 的 DDD... what comes after the last 的 is the subject - DDD in this case.


----------



## Skatinginbc

In my opinion, brofeelgood's sentence (原本稍显弱势但正在逐渐兴起的巫师们却越来越受到沙族传统战士的敌视) is much better than the original (原本稍显弱势的巫师们的逐渐兴起却越来越受到沙族传统战士的敌视).  The use of two 的s in a noun phrase shall be avoided whenever possible (And brofeelgood just proved that it can be done).  And 敌视 is obviously directed towards 巫师们, not 逐渐兴起 (which is the cause of hostility, not the target of the hostility).  The predicate of the original sentence makes argument (i.e., 受到敌视) about the modifier (i.e., 巫师们) of the subject (i.e., 原本稍显弱势的巫师们的逐渐兴起), not the head (i.e., 兴起) of the subject.  It is thus grammatically ill-formed in my book. 兴起 may 導致敌视, but it is 巫师们 who 受到敌视.  Based on the predicate, it should have been 巫师们 to be the subject.


----------



## OneStroke

Skatinginbc said:


> In my opinion, brofeelgood's sentence (原本稍显弱势但正在逐渐兴起的巫师们却越来越受到沙族传统战士的敌视) is much better than the original (原本稍显弱势的巫师们的逐渐兴起却越来越受到沙族传统战士的敌视).  The use of two 的s in a noun phrase shall be avoided whenever possible (And brofeelgood just proved that it can be done).  And 敌视 is obviously directed towards 巫师们, not 逐渐兴起 (which is the cause of hostility, not the target of the hostility).  The predicate of the original sentence makes argument (i.e., 受到敌视) about the modifier (i.e., 巫师们) of the subject (i.e., 原本稍显弱势的巫师们的逐渐兴起), not the head (i.e., 兴起) of the subject.  It is thus grammatically ill-formed in my book. 兴起 may 導致敌视, but it is 巫师们 who 受到敌视.  Based on the predicate, it should have been 巫师们 to be the subject.



I feel that 巫师们的逐渐兴起 itself is not a good Chinese phrase. Firstly, the 们 is redundant - Chinese has never mandated plurals and they should only be used when necessary, e.g. 他們, 汝等. Secondly, using the verb phrase 逐渐兴起 as a noun is poor-quality Chinese since the 定语 巫师们的 was used to modify it. It was probably influenced by English ('the gradual rise of the wizards').

If I were the writer, I would write, 巫师本来稍显弱势，如今他们日渐兴起，越来越受沙族传统战士敌视。

P.S. To the OP, if you're a learner, I'd recommend against using video games for language learning because of this very reason. You should stick to works by recognised writers (or works intended to be read by learners). Many distinguished Chinese writers wrote in simple Chinese - the late Siguo 思果, for example, wrote very simple - but very fluent and effective - essays. You should stay away from 'lower' forms of literature, such as computer game texts or Internet novels, until you can distinguish between good writing and bad writing.


----------



## brofeelgood

I disagree. 兴起 is equally valid and common a noun as a verb, and there is absolutely nothing awkward with using it as either. There are many bad examples where verbs and nouns are haphazardly swapped, but 兴起 is definitely not one of them.

- 社交网络的兴起
- 罗马帝国的兴起和衰亡

As for 们, it's not a mandatory prescription, but it eliminates ambiguity for easier understanding in this (and most) case(s) and conveys the underlying notion precisely. If it weren't for the subsequent sentences, it would be easy to mistakenly construe 巫师本来稍显弱势 to refer to a single wizard instead of the entire group. Employing 巫师们, 巫师一族, 巫师一帮 etc would articulate the point more effectively.


----------



## OneStroke

brofeelgood said:


> I disagree. 兴起 is equally valid and common a noun as a verb, and there is absolutely nothing awkward with using it as either. There are many bad examples where verbs and nouns are haphazardly swapped, but 兴起 is definitely not one of them.
> 
> - 社交网络的兴起
> - 罗马帝国的兴起和衰亡



Actually, I wasn't complaining about 兴起. I was talking about 逐渐兴起. With 逐渐, an adverb, modifying 兴起, 兴起 must be a verb. Similarly, we can say 你的离去 or 他的离去, which are clearly noun phrases, but 忽然离去 must be a verb phrase. 



> As for 们, it's not a mandatory prescription, but it eliminates ambiguity for easier understanding in this (and most) case(s) and conveys the underlying notion precisely. If it weren't for the subsequent sentences, it would be easy to mistakenly construe 巫师本来稍显弱势 to refer to a single wizard instead of the entire group. Employing 巫师们, 巫师一族, 巫师一帮 etc would articulate the point more effectively.


巫师一族, 巫师一帮 are fine, but not 巫师们 because that is a plural suffix and its use should be minimised in Chinese. In any case, I've found the original article on Baidu, and it was clear by context that the wizards were a group.


----------



## brofeelgood

OneStroke said:


> Actually, I wasn't complaining about 兴起. I was talking about 逐渐兴起. With 逐渐, an adverb, modifying 兴起, 兴起 must be a verb. Similarly, we can say 你的离去 or 他的离去, which are clearly noun phrases, but 忽然离去 must be a verb phrase.



Well, I was proffering 逐渐 as an adjective in the sentence. Its intended meaning was "gradual", not "gradually". In typical adverb+verb usage, inserting a 地 in between, i.e. 逐渐地兴起, would be a more common practice.



OneStroke said:


> 巫师一族, 巫师一帮 are fine, but not 巫师们 because that is a plural suffix and its use should be minimised in Chinese. In any case, I've found the original article on Baidu, and it was clear by context that the wizards were a group.



The use of 们 is valid with both pronouns and named nouns.
- Personal or impersonal pronouns - 我们, 你们 
- Nouns without preceding numerical unit of measure (数词或量词) - 老师们 , 各位老师们 , 三位老师们


----------



## OneStroke

brofeelgood said:


> Well, I was proffering 逐渐 as an adjective in the sentence. Its intended meaning was "gradual", not "gradually". In typical adverb+verb usage, inserting a 地 in between, i.e. 逐渐地兴起, would be a more common practice.


Here's a Wikisource search. Of all the results on the first page, all results but the first show 逐渐 modifying verbs, and most do not have 地. The 中心语 of 逐渐 is unclear in the first result because 發展 can indeed be a noun, but it is equally possible that 發展 is a verb here, since 發展 was an object, which can be a verb or a noun (or an adjective, or pronoun, for that matter). (Incidentally, the vast majority of those do not use 地 - in fact, there was one that erroneously used 的.) This indicates that 逐渐 is an adverb.

逐渐 cannot both be an adjective and an adverb. That wouldn't make sense, since an adjective has all the functions of and adverb plus more. Darn it, an adjective is the only word type that can appear in any part of a sentence it wants, be it the subject, the object, the predicate, the adverbial, the attributive or the complement. If 逐渐 could modify both verbs and nouns, it would not be an adjective and and adverb at a same time - it would just be an adjective. (I think you're mixing up 'adverb' and 'adverbial'?)

Let's make up more examples of using 逐渐 like an adjective:
產生了一些逐渐的改變
這個效果很逐漸，要等幾天才看得見

None of these sound right to me.

I don't have any Chinese grammars, so I can only use searches as evidence. I'd love to be corrected by a member with an authoritative grammar reference, but I'm afraid I must insist that my gut shouts 'verb phrase' when I hear 逐渐兴起.



> The use of 们 is valid with both pronouns and named nouns.
> - Personal or impersonal pronouns - 我们, 你们
> - Nouns without preceding numerical unit of measure (数词或量词) - 老师们 , 各位老师们 , 三位老师们


I'm not saying it's wrong or invalid... I'm just saying it's poor writing.


----------



## brofeelgood

OneStroke said:


> 逐渐 cannot both be an adjective and an adverb. That wouldn't make sense, since an adjective has all the functions of and adverb plus more. Darn it, an adjective is the only word type that can appear in any part of a sentence it wants, be it the subject, the object, the predicate, the adverbial, the attributive or the complement. If 逐渐 could modify both verbs and nouns, it would not be an adjective and and adverb at a same time - it would just be an adjective. (I think you're mixing up 'adverb' and 'adverbial'?)



An adverb may serve as an adverbial, but an adverbial is not necessarily an adverb. For a full definition, you may wish to read up here or here. Just like in English, there are exceptions in Chinese where words exist in both forms. 高 is a rather good example in my opinion. 麻雀飞得很高. 他住在一幢高楼里.



OneStroke said:


> Let's make up more examples of using 逐渐 like an adjective:
> 產生了一些逐渐的改變
> 這個效果很逐漸，要等幾天才看得見
> 
> None of these sound right to me.



Simple experiment. Search for "的逐渐改变" to find those examples.



OneStroke said:


> I don't have any Chinese grammars, so I can only use searches as evidence. I'd love to be corrected by a member with an authoritative grammar reference, but I'm afraid I must insist that my gut shouts 'verb phrase' when I hear 逐渐兴起.



Well, neither do I. That's why I'm asking questions here.  I don't think anyone has ever proclaimed to be an authority on grammar in this forum. And don't be mistaken, I'm not disputing 逐渐兴起 can exist as a "adverb + verb" combination at all. Never have. We're on the same page on this one.

Again, like the suggestion above, instead of just "逐渐兴起", think about and search for "的逐渐兴起" to see if anything changes for you. https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&q="的逐渐兴起"


----------



## retrogradedwithwind

老师们, though it is used more widely nowadays than ever, is still awkard to me.

This structure, noun + 们, always reminds me of a joke:
A man said: 你看到书架上的书们了吗？
This man must be exceedingly proficient at English, or another Eorupean language. He said 书们, not 书.

Appendig 们 to nouns when you want to express a PLURAL concept is an apparent symbol of being badly influenced by English. InChinese, only pronouns are suffixed with 们, like 我们你们他们。In ancient times, people used 每， 我们 was 我每。

Obviously, 我们 is different from 我。们 carries a meaning here.

But for what reason you use 们 affixed to a noun?
I cannot figure out a situation where 们 has to be affixed to 书.  Maybe 们 in 老师们 is helpful to refer to all teachers, but I think 各位老师 is more idiomatic.


----------



## fyl

retrogradedwithwind said:


> Appendig 们 to nouns when you want to express a PLURAL concept is an apparent symbol of being badly influenced by English. InChinese, only pronouns are suffixed with 们, like 我们你们他们



I think sometimes 们 can come after a noun and this is not influenced by English. I found this sentence from 红楼梦 第二回: "他父親又不肯回原籍來，只在都中城外和道士們胡羼。"  But I agree that we should be very careful to use 们 after nouns, for example 书们 is definitely a wrong phrase.

For the OP's sentece, I agree with #3 and #4 that 1) multiple 的's are awkward, 2) it is better not to use 们 and 3) ...的逐渐兴起 sounds not so idiomatic though it is grammatically correct.


----------



## brofeelgood

Guys, points on 们 acknowledged. But besides pronouns, what is your take of 们 when applied to person-related / non-object nouns? In other words, expressions like 老师们, 同学们, 女士们 and 先生们, especially when addressing multiple persons directly? Whether we like it or not, there is no denying such phrases are becoming more and more prevalent in contemporary use.

On the topic of non-human objects, there is no question it's wrong. 书们, 碗们, 鞋们


----------



## OneStroke

brofeelgood said:


> An adverb may serve as an adverbial, but an adverbial is not necessarily an adverb. For a full definition, you may wish to read up here or here. Just like in English, there are exceptions in Chinese where words exist in both forms. 高 is a rather good example in my opinion. 麻雀飞得很高. 他住在一幢高楼里.


No, 高 is purely an adjective, not an adverb. Adjectives can fill any position in a sentence. Using 快樂 as an example (as using 高 as a subject, while grammatical correct, makes no sense):

Subject: 快樂是人生中必要的點綴。
Predicate: 他很快樂。
Object: 人生缺不了的，就是快樂。
Attributive: 兒童是世界上最快樂的人兒。(Don't know if you have that song where you live )
Adverbial: 我們一起快樂學習，快樂成長。
Complement: 他吃得很快樂。

A true adverb, on the other hand, only fits the adverbial slot:

Subject: *忽然是他來的原因。
Predicate: *你真忽然！
Object: *那人真是忽然得不可思議。
Attributive: *他做了一個很忽然的動作。
Adverbial: 他忽然跑來。
Complement: *你來得太忽然了吧



> Simple experiment. Search for "的逐渐改变" to find those examples.
> 
> Well, neither do I. That's why I'm asking questions here.  I don't think anyone has ever proclaimed to be an authority on grammar in this forum. And don't be mistaken, I'm not disputing 逐渐兴起 can exist as a "adverb + verb" combination at all. Never have. We're on the same page on this one.
> 
> Again, like the suggestion above, instead of just "逐渐兴起", think about and search for "的逐渐兴起" to see if anything changes for you. https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&q="的逐渐兴起"



I'd prefer not to use Google Search because we're not talking about what is used but what is _good_. If you Google in English, you will find many examples of bad writing, like 'my going to school' - that means the structure exists, but it does not mean the structure is good. I searched Wikisource again, this time for "的逐渐", and there were only four results. Only the third result actually treated 逐渐 as an adjective (the other three had 逐渐 in the adverbial position, and mistakenly used 的 in place of 地, most likely from the early ROC era). I'm not entirely convinced that extending the use of 逐渐 is common practice in proper writing.

I do hope a member here has access to an authoritative grammar reference can point out the most widely-accepted answer, but until then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, based on the age-old principle of 和而不同. 



brofeelgood said:


> In other words, expressions like 老师们, 同学们, 女士们 and 先生们, especially when addressing multiple persons directly? Whether we like it or not, there is no denying such phrases are becoming more and more prevalent in contemporary use.



It has doubtless increased in popularity, but I believe it is a trend that can and should be resisted. I don't think we have succeeded in driving out any westernisations yet, but we should try. 開一個聖誕派對, 必要性不大... I used to write these structures a lot, but I have since learnt to avoid them like the plague. Let's not fall into the trap of 隨波逐流 when it comes to the purity and integrity of our own language. 

P.S. I'm not denying it has always existed, either, but its overuse is annoying. Structures like 使 + obj + adj, passive voice, etc., have always existed in Chinese, but they are overused because of English's influence.


----------



## Skatinginbc

Reasons why 们 is redundant in that context: 
1. Rhythmic pattern: 
巫(da)师(DUM)的(da)逐(DUM)渐(da)兴(DUM)起(da)
巫(da)师(DUM)们(da)的(da)逐(DUM)渐(da)兴(DUM)起(da) ==> That extra 们 interrupts the flow.

2.  巫师 in that context refers to a general class/type of people, not a specific group of individuals.  Compare:  
請問如何教學生語法 ==> 學生 refers to a general class (i.e., students in general).
 只在都中城外和道士們胡羼 ==> 道士們 refers to a specific group of 道士 (e.g, 那些道士), not any 道士.
你要我怎麼對孩子們說? ==> 孩子們 refers to OUR or THOSE children, not any child. 
General class: 有朋友从远方来，不也是很快乐的事吗?
Specific group: 昨天我和朋友們喝酒打牌.


----------



## brofeelgood

OneStroke said:


> I'd prefer not to use Google Search because we're not talking about what is used but what is _good_. If you Google in English, you will find many examples of bad writing, like 'my going to school' - that means the structure exists, but it does not mean the structure is good. I searched Wikisource again, this time for "的逐渐", and there were only four results. Only the third result actually treated 逐渐 as an adjective (the other three had 逐渐 in the adverbial position, and mistakenly used 的 in place of 地, most likely from the early ROC era). I'm not entirely convinced that extending the use of 逐渐 is common practice in proper writing.



Hey mate, I like Google because it gives a wide variety of perspectives. Starting with quantity and slowly narrowing it down to quality is my preferred method of working.  By the way, can you share the link on Wikisource? I made a search on Wikisource, and got 5 results.

- (聯合國大會第一屆會議通過的決議的其中一項) 国际法*的逐渐发展*与编篡
- 随着多种信任措施*的逐渐建立*和落实
- 为促进有关“区域”内活动的国际合作和鼓励与此有关的国际法*的逐渐发展*及其编纂的目的，发动研究和提出建议
- 随着西藏国际学术交流活动*的逐渐开展*，已有十多个国家...
- 2003年伊始，我们曾经希望，2002年在中国所看到*的逐渐*出现但前所未有*的进步*会不断继续并发展

Shouldn't we classify these (发展,建立 etc) as events (nouns), or have I been mistaken all along?



OneStroke said:


> I do hope a member here has access to an authoritative grammar reference can point out the most widely-accepted answer, but until then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, based on the age-old principle of 和而不同.
> 
> It has doubtless increased in popularity, but I believe it is a trend that can and should be resisted. I don't think we have succeeded in driving out any westernisations yet, but we should try. 開一個聖誕派對, 必要性不大... I used to write these structures a lot, but I have since learnt to avoid them like the plague. Let's not fall into the trap of 隨波逐流 when it comes to the purity and integrity of our own language.
> 
> P.S. I'm not denying it has always existed, either, but its overuse is annoying. Structures like 使 + obj + adj, passive voice, etc., have always existed in Chinese, but they are overused because of English's influence.



So true. I've gained invaluable awareness from your (and all the others') insights. Although I'm never against the evolution of any language, the process has to be logical. I'm with you on making a conscious effort to stave off "abuses" which are too much to bear. Unfortunately the deterioration is everywhere, even in English, where the proportion of qualified speakers is high. Unfortunately, the level of indifference is even higher.


----------



## brofeelgood

Skatinginbc said:


> Reasons why 们 is redundant in that context:
> 1. Rhythmic pattern:
> 巫(da)师(DUM)的(da)逐(DUM)渐(da)兴(DUM)起(da)
> 巫(da)师(DUM)们(da)的(da)逐(DUM)渐(da)兴(DUM)起(da) ==> That extra 们 interrupts the flow.
> 
> 2.  巫师 in that context refers to a general class/type of people, not a specific group of individuals.  Compare:
> 請問如何教學生語法 ==> 學生 refers to a general class (i.e., students in general).
> 只在都中城外和道士們胡羼 ==> 道士們 refers to a specific group of 道士 (e.g, 那些道士), not any 道士.
> 你要我怎麼對孩子們說? ==> 孩子們 refers to OUR or THOSE children, not any child.
> General class: 有朋友从远方来，不也是很快乐的事吗?
> Specific group: 昨天我和朋友們喝酒打牌.



I like (2). Simple but elegant.


----------



## OneStroke

brofeelgood said:


> Hey mate, I like Google because it gives a wide variety of perspectives. Starting with quantity and slowly narrowing it down to quality is my preferred method of working.  By the way, can you share the link on Wikisource? I made a search on Wikisource, and got 5 results.
> 
> - (聯合國大會第一屆會議通過的決議的其中一項) 国际法*的逐渐发展*与编篡
> - 随着多种信任措施*的逐渐建立*和落实
> - 为促进有关“区域”内活动的国际合作和鼓励与此有关的国际法*的逐渐发展*及其编纂的目的，发动研究和提出建议
> - 随着西藏国际学术交流活动*的逐渐开展*，已有十多个国家...
> - 2003年伊始，我们曾经希望，2002年在中国所看到*的逐渐*出现但前所未有*的进步*会不断继续并发展
> 
> Shouldn't we classify these (发展,建立 etc) as events (nouns), or have I been mistaken all along?



Ah, I feel an explanation of the MediaWiki software is necessary then. In a Chinese-language wiki driven by MediaWiki (provided the necessary extension is used), all the text is stored in simplified characters, traditional characters or a mix of both. When a text is displayed, it will be converted to all-traditional or all-simplified according to the user's settings, along with a few other changes (such as changing 希特勒 to 希特拉 for Hong Kong users). (There is special syntax for suppressing such conversions, etc.) When we search, we are searching for the actual text stored. As I made my search in traditional Chinese, the results I got were completely different from yours.

Anyway, back to the subject at hand... Yes, you're right, the first four results from your list are indeed adj. + noun combinations, since they were modified by attributive. The last one is not (I believe it should be dissected thus: 2002年在中国所看到*的/逐渐出现但前所未有的/进步/会不断继续并发展*.) I think this is explicable, though, as Chinese texts from post-1949 Mainland China and abroad, and from Hong Kong in the past 30 years or so tend to be heavily westernised, while Taiwan retains its quality to this day. Extreme rightists in Hong Kong who believe in cultural superiority cynically call this kind of language 'CCP Chinese', although I think that's a misnomer because party members aren't the only ones writing them. As you were searching in simplified Chinese, it's unsurprising that you received more 'westernised' results. << just my two cents.

[Of your first four results, two were from the UN and two were from the Mainland.]

In my experience, scientific literature (at least the popular science I used to read, anyway) and official texts from the Mainland are usually ridden with anglicisms, not to mention translations (unless they were translated by serious scholars). To determine good style, a corpus of high-quality literature (essays, short stories, novels, etc., by serious scholars and writers, such as Yu Guangzhong, Pai Hsien-yung, Siguo, Tung Chiao, etc.) would be more helpful for us, IMO.


----------



## brofeelgood

OneStroke said:


> Ah, I feel an explanation of the MediaWiki software is necessary then. In a Chinese-language wiki driven by MediaWiki (provided the necessary extension is used), all the text is stored in simplified characters, traditional characters or a mix of both. When a text is displayed, it will be converted to all-traditional or all-simplified according to the user's settings, along with a few other changes (such as changing 希特勒 to 希特拉 for Hong Kong users). (There is special syntax for suppressing such conversions, etc.) When we search, we are searching for the actual text stored. As I made my search in traditional Chinese, the results I got were completely different from yours.
> 
> Anyway, back to the subject at hand... Yes, you're right, the first four results from your list are indeed adj. + noun combinations, since they were modified by attributive. The last one is not (I believe it should be dissected thus: 2002年在中国所看到*的/逐渐出现但前所未有的/进步/会不断继续并发展*.) I think this is explicable, though, as Chinese texts from post-1949 Mainland China and abroad, and from Hong Kong in the past 30 years or so tend to be heavily westernised, while Taiwan retains its quality to this day. Extreme rightists in Hong Kong who believe in cultural superiority cynically call this kind of language 'CCP Chinese', although I think that's a misnomer because party members aren't the only ones writing them. As you were searching in simplified Chinese, it's unsurprising that you received more 'westernised' results. << just my two cents.
> 
> [Of your first four results, two were from the UN and two were from the Mainland.]
> 
> In my experience, scientific literature (at least the popular science I used to read, anyway) and official texts from the Mainland are usually ridden with anglicisms, not to mention translations (unless they were translated by serious scholars). To determine good style, a corpus of high-quality literature (essays, short stories, novels, etc., by serious scholars and writers, such as Yu Guangzhong, Pai Hsien-yung, Siguo, Tung Chiao, etc.) would be more helpful for us, IMO.



Lol... got it, mate. For a moment, I thought there's some internet filtering going on over here.


----------



## retrogradedwithwind

原本稍显弱势的巫师们的逐渐兴起却越来越受到沙族传统战士的敌视

Our ancestors would write it this way:
巫师一方原本稍显弱势，后来逐渐兴起，因而也越来越受到沙族传统战士的敌视

Technically, the original sentence is a 病句。

Errrrr, 提取句子主干(how to express this meaning in English?):
兴起受到敌视。
受到敌视的应该是巫师，不是兴起。

I have to  say, just now I found it grammatically wrong. Maybe this is way Onestroke feel it wired.


----------



## Skatinginbc

retrogradedwithwind said:


> But for what reason you use 们 affixed to a noun?


《鄭愁予.天窗》 每夜，星子們都來我的屋瓦上汲水.
Skatinginbc: 每夜，兄弟們都來我的惡夢裡鬥嘴 .  
 The function of 們 in 星子們 is "熟人化" (= 擬人化 + 熟悉化) as 們 is usually attached to a noun that refers to a known (熟 or 認識的) group of people (人)(e.g., 朋友們,   鄰居們, 老師們, 孩子們).  們 is also attached to pronouns (e.g., 你們, 我們, 他們), whose referents are known (old information).  
親愛的三軍將士們 ==> 熟人化 (親近化) like 親愛的伯伯叔叔們.

My makeover: 
Before: 原本稍显弱势的巫师们的逐渐兴起却越来越受到沙族传统战士的敌视
After: 巫方原處弱勢, 後漸興, 遂越發遭受沙族老軍排擠.


----------



## OneStroke

Skatinginbc said:


> My makeover:
> Before: 原本稍显弱势的巫师们的逐渐兴起却越来越受到沙族传统战士的敌视
> After: 巫方原略勢弱, 後漸興, 遂逐遭沙族老軍排擠.


That's much better than the original, as well as my slight change.


----------



## Skatinginbc

Oops, sorry.  I edited my post without knowing that you have responded to it.  My newest version is: 巫方原處弱勢, 後漸興, 遂越發遭受沙族老軍排擠.

Re: 巫师们的逐渐兴起 
Grammatically speaking, a gerund or even a sentence can serve as the subject (e.g., 平心靜氣地接受責問是我萬萬做不到的 or 你能平心靜氣地接受責問, 是我萬萬做不到的).  A gerund followed by an adjectival (including possessive), however, is ill-formed (e.g., *你的平心靜氣地接受責問, 是我萬萬做不到的). 
她的突然離去令我痛心不已 is grammatically correct if we see 突然離去 as a noun phrase meaning "sudden departure".  However, the same idea can be easily expressed with 她突然離去, 令我痛心不已.  Just as multiple 的s in a noun phrase are undesirable, so are expressions that create structural ambiguity (e.g., 突然離去, 逐渐兴起 ==> verb phrase??). Such ambiguity shall be avoided whenever possible.


----------



## retrogradedwithwind

Skatinginbc said:


> 《鄭愁予.天窗》 每夜，星子們都來我的屋瓦上汲水.
> Skatinginbc: 每夜，兄弟們都來我的惡夢裡鬥嘴 .
> The function of 們 in 星子們 is "熟人化" (= 擬人化 + 熟悉化) as 們 is usually attached to a noun that refers to a known (熟 or 認識的) group of people (人)(e.g., 朋友們,   鄰居們, 老師們, 孩子們).  們 is also attached to pronouns (e.g., 你們, 我們, 他們), whose referents are known (old information).
> 親愛的三軍將士們 ==> 熟人化 (親近化) like 親愛的伯伯叔叔們.
> 
> My makeover:
> Before: 原本稍显弱势的巫师们的逐渐兴起却越来越受到沙族传统战士的敌视
> After: 巫方原處弱勢, 後漸興, 遂越發遭受沙族老軍排擠.



有星座们洗尘的酒宴 
偎依水草的殒石们乃有了短短的睡眠
而像女学生穿著毛线衣一样多彩的 红，黄，绿的旗子们，
匆忙的鹌鹑们走卅里积雪的夜路 
爱学淘沙的芦荻们，便忙碌起来 

找了几个例子，觉得郑加们，就是一种习惯


----------



## retrogradedwithwind

英语中有一种流行趋势，是动词的名词化。
He invites me.
His invitation is to me.
很显然，汉语也在学这个


----------



## Skatinginbc

retrogradedwithwind said:


> 有星座们洗尘的酒宴
> 偎依水草的殒石们乃有了短短的睡眠
> 而像女学生穿著毛线衣一样多彩的 红，黄，绿的旗子们，
> 匆忙的鹌鹑们走卅里积雪的夜路
> 爱学淘沙的芦荻们，便忙碌起来
> 
> 找了几个例子，觉得郑加们，就是一种习惯


All of the above involve 擬人化, which demands conscious choice of words and is by no means 就是一种习惯.


----------



## OneStroke

Skatinginbc said:


> Oops, sorry.  I edited my post without knowing that you have responded to it.  My newest version is: 巫方原處弱勢, 後漸興, 遂越發遭受沙族老軍排擠.
> 
> Re: 巫师们的逐渐兴起
> Grammatically speaking, a gerund or even a sentence can serve as the subject (e.g., 平心靜氣地接受責問是我萬萬做不到的 or 你能平心靜氣地接受責問, 是我萬萬做不到的).  A gerund followed by an adjectival (including possessive), however, is ill-formed (e.g., *你的平心靜氣地接受責問, 是我萬萬做不到的).
> 她的突然離去令我痛心不已 is grammatically correct if we see 突然離去 as a noun phrase meaning "sudden departure".  However, the same idea can be easily expressed with 她突然離去, 令我痛心不已.  Just as multiple 的s in a noun phrase are undesirable, so are expressions that create structural ambiguity (e.g., 突然離去, 逐渐兴起 ==> verb phrase??). Such ambiguity shall be avoided whenever possible.


突然 is no doubt an adjective and not an adverb, so I think it's easy to interpret 突然離去 as a noun phrase, but the point on which we were debating is that I feel 逐渐 is an adverb, which would mean 逐渐兴起 cannot but be a verb phrase. To me, 逐渐兴起 is more like 忽然離去 than 突然離去. What do you think about my take?


----------



## Skatinginbc

Well, that is a gray area I did not wish to touch as the language keeps evolving.  
922,000  google results for 逐渐的.    
424,000 for 忽然的.
1,410,000 for 突然的.
逐渐的 falls exactly halfway between 突然的 and 忽然的.     
When many people make the same mistake, it will no longer be considered a mistake from the descriptive point of view.


Skatinginbc said:


> A gerund _followed_ by an adjectival  (including possessive), however, is ill-formed (e.g., *你的平心靜氣地接受責問,  是我萬萬做不到的).


I just discovered a mistake in my previous post.  I meant "a gerund _preceded_ by an adjectival is ill-formed.

Re: 巫师的逐渐兴起
To me, the issue is not so much about whether 逐渐的 can be an adjective as about whether 兴起 can be easily seen as a regular noun and not a gerund.  The word *起* is the problem.  It carries an adverbial sense, 用在动词后作为补足语,表示动作的向上方向 [used as a complement after a verb indicating the upward direction].  It triggers the verbal interpretation of 兴 and hence 兴起 is perceived as a gerund and 逐渐 as an adverb.  As I said, "a gerund preceded by an adjectival (巫师的) is ill-formed".

Parallelism can help reducing structural ambiguity, for instance, 罗马帝国的兴起和衰亡, in which 起 "beginning" contrasts with 亡 "end".  It excludes the adverbial interpretation of 起 and thus 兴起 in that context becomes a legitimate noun.


----------

