# Why two propositional negation devices ( 不 / 沒)?



## Sibutlasi

Hello all, 

I am beginning to explore (the grammars of) Mandarin - not really 'learn' it yet - and I would like an explanation for the existence in the language of two propositional negation devices in what seems to be some sort of 'complementary distribution', although under what conditions I am still in the dark. Here is my problem:

Assuming that languages do not create complexities in vain (say ‘Economy’), the existence in Mandarin of two different propositional negation devices - via “bù”, an ‘adverb’, and “méi” or “méiyou” (verbs) - seems to point to relevant differences between the negated propositional functions (= propositions whose truth value is unspecified; in grammar: “predications” ), and between the ontological properties of the situations (‘states of affairs’) that such predications describe. However, which such difference(s) may be is as yet unclear to me. The grammars of Mandarin (in English!) I have seen all list the ‘facts’, but none offers anything remotely acceptable as an ‘explanation’ (= why "bù" and "méi" must distribute as they do). 

Since one of the cases in which “méi” is possible but “bù” is not is when “you3” - meaning “have”, “possess”, “be = exist”, “be the case” - must be negated, I may as well begin with the easiest part of the problem: I wonder whether native speakers of Mandarin perceive any property of “you3” that distinguishes it from other stative predicates (including “shì”, all adjective/verbs, verb/prepositions like “zài”, modals, and bona-fide stative verbs like “yào”, “pà”, etc.) and may explain the need to negate “you3” (and only “you3”!) with “méi” while all other stative predicates must be negated with “bù” (assuming that is a fact, as those grammars claim).

For the sake of clarity: “you3” may be a two-place predicate (meaning “have, possess” - a straightforward transitive verb not worth discussing), or a one-place predicate meaning either a) “[there] is/exists x”, if its only argument x is an ‘entity’ (a ‘thing’ in the broadest sense), or b) “is the case that /exists the situation [Possible state of affairs]”, if its only argument happens to be a “predication”. 

Particularly interesting (to me) is case b). I wonder what grammatical properties that predication must have, possibly as a consequence of the ontological properties of the state of affairs it describes, to require “you3” (and “méi”, if the sentence must be negative). Note, in this respect, that, apparently, “shì” can also mean “is the case/exists (the situation) (that) [Possible state of affairs] (and “bú shì” “it is not the case (that) [Possible state of affairs], and, as far as I can see, with no difference as to the choice of the [Possible states of affairs] described after each of them, which suggests no difference whatsoever as to the arguments of “you3” and “shì” when used as one-place predicates in sense b) above.

The grammars I have seen usually say that the time[interval] at which the state of affairs is described as* not *holding is relevant, and that ‘méi’ is used to negate sentences describing events that did not occur in the past (sometimes explicitly marked with “guò”), whereas “bù” is used to negate states of affairs that do not hold at present or will not hold at some future time. That is obviously a simplification, of course, if only because “hái méi + predicate” and “hái bù + predicate” are both possible when the predication is negative precisely because it refers to an event that has not yet occurred but is possible in the future. 

But, anyway, leaving that aside, I see no valid ontological difference among states of affairs that did not hold in the past, do not hold at present, or will not hold in the future (all of them are ‘non-states-of affairs’), no logical difference among the corresponding propositional functions, and no relevant grammatical difference among the respective predications.

This leaves me completely in the dark as to the reason why Mandarin has two propositional negation strategies. I must be missing something. 

Can anybody out there explain to me what?

Since I am a beginner and my knowledge of Chinese characters is negligible, I would greatly appreciate your citing relevant examples, if any, in their Pinyin representation.

Thank you in advance for your attention.


----------



## Ghabi

Sibutlasi said:


> For the sake of clarity: “you3” may be a two-place predicate (meaning “have, possess” - a straightforward transitive verb not worth discussing), or a one-place predicate meaning either a) “[there] is/exists x”, if its only argument x is an ‘entity’ (a ‘thing’ in the broadest sense), or b) “is the case that /exists the situation [Possible state of affairs]”, if its only argument happens to be a “predication”.


Hi! Perhaps that's not so straightforward and worth a bit discussing? Consider: wo3 mei2(you3) qian2. Perhaps it's more like Russian у меня нет денег or Japanese 僕はお金がない, than English "I have no money"? Perhaps it isn't a personal, transitive verb after all and thus behaves differently?


----------



## Sibutlasi

Ghabi said:


> Hi! Perhaps that's not so straightforward and  worth a bit discussing? Consider: wo3 mei2(you3) qian2. Perhaps it's  more like Russian у меня нет денег or Japanese 僕はお金がない, than English "I  have no money"? Perhaps it isn't a personal, transitive verb after all  and thus behaves differently?



Hi Ghabi, thanks for your interest! 

Of  course, you are right, I should not have written that, since it  contradicts my third paragraph: I still want to know if "you3" is  special in some way. 

All I meant was that the two-place reading of  "you3", as expressed via the <Subject (e.g., "wo3") + "you3" + object  (e.g., "qián")> pattern, is assumed without discussion in all  grammars I have seen. Of course, I did *not* mean that  "wo3 you3 qián" is completely parallel to English "I have money" - or  its translation equivalents in other languages, including Russian and  Japanese (about which I know nothing). 

We need not search as far as Russian or Japanese: even if we restrict comparison to English, "wo3 you3 qián" *cannot*  be structurally parallel to "I have money", since a) English "I"  alternates with "me" elsewhere, whereas Mandarin "wo3" has the same form  in every context, b) English "have" is negated by means of "do not" (or  "not got" in old-fashioned UK English), none of which has translation  equivalents in Mandarin, and, crucially here, does *not*  require a special negative word that no other verb co-occurs with  (since, in English, "not" is the only choice, as you know), whereas  "you3" does (it accepts "méi", but rejects "bù"), and c) "money" is not  an accurate counterpart of "qián" either, since English "money"  alternates with "the money" (definite reference, thanks to "the"),  whereas "qián" may be definite in reference as it stands; just put it in  subject position with most predicates and it will need no determiner to  be interpreted as definite in reference. 

Actually, I also used  'transitive' in a very broad sense. I did not expect that to matter in  the context, but, to be precise, English "have" is not strictly speaking  a well-behaved 'transitive' verb at all, since it has no passive (cf.  "*Money is had by me"). 

So, all I meant was that the existence  of a S+V+O pattern in Mandarin is beyond issue, and that "you3" is one  of the verbs that fits into its V slot. Stop. 

Of course, if  "you3" were not capable of taking a 'personal' subject in that SVO  construction, I would want to know, but, as far as I see, there is no  evidence in support of such a claim. If you have any, I am all ears,  ! 

Since you must have something in mind, or you would not  have written your last sentence, let me guess. Perhaps "wo3" is a kind  of 'locative' (as possession is expressed in some languages) ... say,  something like *"wo3 li3 [you3 qián]" in disguise (= my invention, not  Mandarin, as far as I know!)?.... But I would like to see you proving  that, or anything that deviates from the usual assumption that "wo3" is a  Possessor when used as in "wo3 you3 qian2". Come on, convince me that  there is more than meets the eye, let's have fun 

Regards


----------



## YangMuye

The question sounds like "why some verbs in English are irregular" or "why the be verb is the most irregular verb".

Chinese negation is very complex.
We historically used wu2 wei4 bu4 fu2 mo4 wu4...
There were no strict logical difference among them. Their usages contrasted and overlapped in different ages.
bu2 you3 was still seen in some classic style written Chinese 50 years ago.
mei2you3 is relative newer than mei2 and the usage is still changing. The uses of mei2zai4 and bu2zai4 is increasing...
More over mei2you3 is still different from mei2, not in meaning, but in the position it is allowed to appear.


----------



## xiaolijie

YangMuye said:


> The question sounds like "why some verbs in English are irregular" or "why the be verb is the most irregular verb".


I agree with YangMuye. In the forum we actively discourage the "why-type" of questions, those which are incapable of a resolution. We call this type of questions "research questions".


----------



## Sibutlasi

xiaolijie said:


> I agree with YangMuye. In the forum we actively discourage the "why-type" of questions, those which are incapable of a resolution. We call this type of questions "research questions".



I'm sorry, sir, but what the forum describes as 'research questions' is this:

*"Research:* Do not ask questions such as:  



A question that is a survey of member opinions rather than a discussion of a specific linguistic issue.
A question about creating a product or  business name, or about a potential advertising slogan.
A question about hypothetical words or constructions rather than actual English usage." [end of quote]

There is no reference whatsoever to "why-type" questions. The 'interpretation' you make of those rules is *yours*, xiaolijie, not the forum's, and it is a perfectly arbitrary interpretation. Discouraging "why" questions is against mature inquiry and rational discussion. Only authoritarian teachers, or institutions, in general, 'discourage' people who want to know, not just the facts, but the reasons why the facts are what they are. That is what real science is about. Try to present a thesis at MIT, Stanford, Cambridge, Berkeley,... any scientifically prestigious higher institution, in which you 'list' the facts. That is the most obsolete and obtuse form of positivism, and I am amazed that you dare say that your policy is exactly that. 

But the question is not your opinion, but whether my questions offend against the forum's rules, and they do not. My questions promote discussion of specific linguistic issues. I am not interested in a list of opinions of members of this forum. Opinions are worth nothing without evidence and proof, so my question cannot be excluded according to the first clause. The second clause, obviously, does not apply to my question, either. As to the third clause, obviously, "bù" and "méi", and the sentences in which they must respectively appear have nothing "hypothetical" about them. Hence, it is obvious that there is nothing in my question that contravenes the forum's rules in what concerns "research questions" (and it is funny that 'research' should be understood as in the forum's rules!). Why you and YangMuye do not like this kind of question is something you should explain, because it seems as if you are abusing the forum's rules.


----------



## Sibutlasi

YangMuye said:


> The question sounds like "why some verbs in English are irregular" or "why the be verb is the most irregular verb".[...]


No, it does not, not at all. (It may sound to you, of course). Why some English verbs are irregular is a perfectly legitimate question that can be explained. I could explain to you why even the most irregular verb, "be" has the forms it has. Only I will not, because this is a forum dedicated to the discussion of questions about Chinese.

The rest of what you say in your reply is perfectly irrelevant to the issue I raised.


----------



## xiaolijie

Sibutlasi, 
Reading your posts above I can't help but feel a sense of resignation, mixed with a sense of compassion. 
But so as not to take the thread further away from the topic, I wish you good luck!


----------



## Skatinginbc

Sibutlasi said:


> Assuming that languages do not create  complexities in vain (say ‘Economy’).


Languages are living organisms undergoing  changes all the time.  Just as vermiform appendix, which has lost most  of its functions, remains in the human body, so do linguistic features  no longer open for innovations survive in fixed expressions (e.g., 无所不有 ==> 不 Bu + 有 you3).   As a result, what we can meaningfully discuss here is simplified rules  that account for most but not all data in a living language.        


Sibutlasi said:


> “be = exist”..."shì” can also mean “is the case/exists (the situation)


The  existential meaning of 是 is restricted to somewhat fixed expressions  (e.g., 满身是汗, 到处是水), an indication that it may be in the process of  becoming "vermiform appendix".  The negation of this particular usage is  没 (e.g., 满身没汗, 到处没水), not 不.  So the consistency is there: 没 for negation of existence. 


Sibutlasi said:


> “hái méi + predicate” and “hái bù + predicate” are both possible when  the predication is negative precisely because it refers to an event that  has not yet occurred but is possible in the future


你还没走? ==> "You haven't left yet?" questioning the state of departure. 
你还不走? ==> "You still don't want to leave?" questioning the willingness of departure.


----------



## BODYholic

Sibutlasi said:


> Since one of the cases in which “méi” is possible but “bù” is not is when “you3” - ... (abridged)



It is incorrect to say that pairing of “bù” and “you3” is _impossible_. While it is less common in modem/contemporary Chinese, "bu4you3" still exists in a few fixed expressions as mentioned in post#4.

Some of the really common ones are: 
1) 无奇不有
2) 无所不有
3) 如不有XLJ主持大局，这论坛将天下大乱。（希望别拍到马腿）

Reference: http://www.zdic.net/c/d/14/30812.htm



Sibutlasi said:


> whereas  "you3" does (it accepts "méi", but rejects "bù"), and c) "money" is not  an accurate counterpart of "qián" either, since English "money"  alternates with "the money" (definite reference, thanks to "the"),  whereas "qián" may be definite in reference as it stands; just put it in  subject position with most predicates and it will need no determiner to  be interpreted as definite in reference.


Even in the case of "wo3 you3 qian2", it is still wholly incorrect to say "you3" only accepts "mei3" but rejects "bu4". It accepts both even in modern Chinese but their meanings differ.

"wo3 mei3 you3 qian2" = I have no money.
"wo3 bu4 you3 qian2" = I'm not rich.


----------



## YangMuye

BODYholic said:


> 3) 如不有XLJ主持大局，这论坛将天下大乱。（希望别拍到马腿）


Strictly speaking, shouldn't be 论坛将大乱? 



BODYholic said:


> "wo3 mei3 you3 qian2" = I have no money.
> "wo3 bu4 you3 qian2" = I'm not rich.


It's interesting that we say bu4 you3 qian2 while we don't say bu4 you3 cai2 hua2.
bu4 you3 qian2 is only acceptable to me when you put your stress on bu4.
Likewise bing4 bu4 you3 cai2 hua2 is much better than bu4 you3 cai2 hua2.

The asymmetry of affirmative and negative forms is very common in Chinese.
you3 yi4 yu2 <> wu2 yi4 yu2 (sometimes) bing4 bu4 you3 yi4 yu2  (the same as you3 zhu4 yu2, you3 li4 yu2,... you3 bie2 yu2 is different, (bing4) bu4 you3 bie2 yu2 is the basic form)
you3 hao3 bao4 <> mei2 hao3 bao (sometimes) bing4 bu4 you3 hao3 bao4

Anyway, Chinese negative forms are much more regular than that of Japanese.


----------



## Skatinginbc

不 + adj.  For instance, 
不有钱 "not rich", 不幸福  "not happy", 不有才华 "not talented"
没(有) + N.  For instance, 
没钱 "without money", 没有钱 "have no money", 没幸福  "without happiness", 没有幸福 "have no happiness", 没幸福的日子 "without a happy day", 没有才华 "have no talent".


BODYholic said:


> 如不有XLJ主持大局，这论坛将天下大乱。


Although 不有 is correct in classical-style writing and perhaps in some dialects, it would be either "如*没有(=**無)*XLJ主持大局，这论坛将大乱" or "如*不由*XLJ主持大局，这论坛将大乱" in contemporary 國語.
XLJ主持大局 is treated as a noun in 如没有(=無)XLJ主持大局 "If without XLJ's moderation".

To Sibutlasi,
What Ghabi pointed out for you by citing Russian and  Japanese examples is the possibility that it may not be as  straightforward as the subject-predicate construction that you are  familiar with.  Have you heard of the topic-comment structure?  世上*沒有*免費午餐 "Speaking of the world,  there is no such thing as a free lunch".  世上 can be analyzed as the  Topic rather than the Subject (Possessor).
Here is an obvious example of the topic-comment structure: 我钱*没有*, 命倒有一条.
Here are some less obvious examples of the topic-comment structures: 屋内*没*人.  我(身上)*没*钱.

When 是 serves as a linking verb (copula), its negation is 不 (e.g., 这不是山, 这不是蓝色).  When 是 means "exist", its negation is 没 (e..g, 到处是水 ==> 到处没水).


----------



## Sibutlasi

Skatinginbc said:


> To Sibutlasi,
> What Ghabi pointed out for you by citing Russian and  Japanese examples  is the possibility that it may not be as  straightforward as the  subject-predicate construction that you are  familiar with.  Have you  heard of the topic-comment structure?  世上*沒有*免費午餐  "Speaking of the world,  there is no such thing as a free lunch".  世上  can be analyzed as the  Topic rather than the Subject (Possessor).
> Here is an obvious example of the topic-comment structure: 我钱*没有*, 命倒有一条.
> Here are some less obvious examples of the topic-comment structures: 屋内*没*人.  我(身上)*没*钱.
> 
> When 是 serves as a linking verb (copula), its negation is 不 (e.g., 这不是山,  这不是蓝色).  When 是 means "exist", its negation is 没 (e..g, 到处是水 ==>  到处没水).



Hi Skatinginbc.Thanks for your attention, 

I  hope I do not sound as if I haven´t heard of the Topic+Comment pattern  . Note, however, that Topic+Comment belongs to the level usually  named "information structure", which is superimposed to (and independent  of) 'functional syntactic' (> predication structure). It is true  that a Topic may be followed by a complete subject+predicate structure,  but it need not be, and, in this case, it does not seem to be - unless  you claim there is a half-rising intonation+pause between "wo3>2" and  "you3", and so "you3" has an ellipted subject co-referential with  "wo3", a rather far-fetched (and, as far as I can see, unjustified)  analysis: Since natives do not insert comma/pause/half-rising intonation  between "wo3" and "you3" - the canonical expression of Topic-hood -  there is no reason to analyze "wo3" as a Topic. *However*,  *even if *"wo3" had the informational role of Topic (plus pause,  semi-anti-cadence, etc.), a co-referential ellipted subject would have  to be postulated, or "you3" would lack an obligatory argument. Hence,  the relevant underlying pattern would still be S[ellipted]VO, and my  claim that that use of "you3" in the Chinese S+V+O pattern is  straightforward would not be affected. In sum, it is rather otiose to  assume a marked information structure in "wo3 you3 qian2", which leaves  the 'easy part' of my question untouched. Let me remind you what it was:  Do native speakers perceive any special property in "you3" that  explains why it must be negated by means of "méi" contrary to other  stative verbs? 

[TO BODYholic 10#]. Since all my grammars, and several reliable  judgments of highly educated native speakers, confirm that "you3" must  be negated with "méi", I disregard here the cases of contrast cited by  BODYholic when he claims  "Even in the case of "wo3 you3 qian2", it is  still *wholly incorrect(?)* to  say "you3" only accepts "mei3" but rejects "bu4". It accepts both even  in modern Chinese but their meanings differ. "wo3 mei3 you3 qian2" = I  have no money. "wo3 bu4 you3 qian2" = I'm not rich." Of course that contrast is very interesting (Thanks BODYholic!)  but different lexemes "you3" vs "you3qian2" may well be involved in such  examples (the second a 'lexicalized? collocation' with an obvious change of meaning), and maybe they do  not (or no longer) represent standard usage. In particular 'idiolects'  nearly every standard rule can be challenged,  but taking in such facts would yield incoherent grammars that especially  foreign learners cannot afford to consider. If the facts BODYholic  refers to had real sociological significance, standard grammars and  textbooks for foreign learners would surely warn us about the  existence of such contrasts and relativize the rule accordingly, but they invariably  offer it as a rather categorical rule].

[To Skatinginbc 12#, last sentence] Of course I know that  "shì" can be negated with "bù" when it is an emphatic copula, but all  stative verbs but "you3" can (or so grammars say!). That approximates "shì" to them, but says nothing as to the idiosyncrasy of "you3".   As to your consideration about the possible status of "méi" preceding "you3" as a  'remnant' feature, they are interesting, and plausibly correct.  However, when you claim above [in #9] /QUOTE/ "The  existential meaning  of 是 is restricted to somewhat fixed  expressions  (e.g., 满身是汗, 到处是水), an indication that it may be in the  process of  becoming [a] "vermiform appendix".  The negation of this  particular usage is  没 (e.g., 满身没汗, 到处没水), not 不. * So the consistency is  there: 没 for negation of existence*."/END OF QUOTE/ I suspect  you may not be taking into consideration the fact that "existence" of an  entity and "existence of an event" are not really such different cases  (Note that some 'entities' are eventive, e.g., "wedding", "lecture",  "war", et.). Besides, "Exist the situation that ..." and "be the case  that ...." are logically indistinguishable glosses. If I am not  mistaken, when "shì" means 'it is the case" and its sentential  complement contains a universal quantifier, the only way to have  negation take scope over the universal quantifier is to transfer it to  the higher clause (i.e., that of "shì") and say e.g. "*Bú*  shì + predication" (e.g., "Bú shì zhong1guo2 (de) dàxuàsheng xiànzài  dou1 yào huì/xuéxí ying1yu3" (= it is not the case/There is no real  situation to the effect that all Chinese university students want to  speak/learn English") [Please correct possibly irrelevant mistakes in my  examples; recall that I'm 'improvising' them myself on the basis of the  rules supplied by various grammars]. In other words, in my sense b)  above, "bu" and "méi" do not seem distinguishable by the complement  sentences thay each govern. (Or so it seems to me so far. Is that right?)

The  fact that existential "shì" (and possibly not just existential "shì",  in view of "méishì") is negated by "méi" is interesting, of course, but,  for present purposes, it means that the two stative verbs "you3" and  "shì" overlap in their existential use, as well, which entails there is  another reason to demand for an explanation of the peculiarities of  "you3" [= the easy part of my initial question]. However, let me insist  that the properties of "shì" were not under discussion in my original  post except to the extent that its ability to mean "it is the case  that", and be negated with "bù", makes it 'compete' with "(méi)you3" in what continue to seem to me identical contexts. 

That  leads us back to where we started: unless the sentential complements  that follow "you3" and "shì" have something sufficiently different, the  doublet "(méi)you3" and "(bú)shi4" remains in need of an explanation.  And, I insist: as far as I can see, there is no valid ontological,  logical or syntactic difference between them. The details you have  provided are very interesting, but far from revealing differential  properties of "you3" versus other state verbs and identifying reasons  for the existence of the two alternatives "bù" and "méi" (as well as  "shì" and "you3" in the existential and fact-introducing senses  discussed), they have the opposite effect: they underline their  overlapping use and arguably their redundant (or quasi-redundant) status  in a uniform Mandarin language.

Obviously, Skatinginbc, reducing  "méi" to a 'remnant' and increasingly dys-funcional syntactic/semantic  element dissolves my problem: history had created a dysfunction that a  'therapeutic' language change is about to remove. However, from what I  have read, many speakers of Mandarin (and all grammars!) would by no  means accept the obsolescence and dysfunctionalty of "méi"...!. The  'problem' can be trivially swept under the rug by claiming that "bù' and  'méi' have long coexisted in *different* Chinese languages, dialects or  idiolects. That may well be entirely correct from a diachronic  viewpoint, but does not remove the above difficulty form a strictly  synchronic viewpoint! Today's speakers need not be aware of the earlier  co-existence of "bù" and "mèi", and to the extent language change is a  process of rationalization and optimization of resources (like  Biology?), as soon as they think of the matter, they'll find themselves  in the same plight that led me to raise this question.

Thank you  all very much for your various contributions. And please correct my  mistakes or inaccuracies: I can cite chapter and verse for every  statement made above, but, being a beginner, I must for the time being  rely on what would-be authoritative textbooks, grammars and dictionaries  say. That does not mean that I invariabley trust those sources.  Actually, most are full of obvious mistakes, and  from an explanatory point of view, their value is small, but there is  nothing else we foreigners can go by at the beginning stages.

Regards


----------



## Skatinginbc

Sibutlasi said:


> unless  you claim there is a half-rising intonation+pause between "wo3>2" and  "you3", and so "you3" has an ellipted subject co-referential with  "wo3", a rather far-fetched (and, as far as I can see, unjustified)  analysis


Where did you get that idea?  Some topic-comment structures may (only may, but not necessarily) appear that way when two nouns go side by side, but not all topic-comment structures behave as such. 


Sibutlasi said:


> As to your consideration about the possible status of "méi" preceding "you3" as a  'remnant' feature


I never said that.  *You need to reread our posts*.  As a rule of thumb, *the negation of 有 is 没* except (1) in older or fixed expressions (e.g., 无所不有), or (2) when 有 is not a verb but part of an adjectival phrase (e.g., 有钱 "rich" ==> 不有钱). 


Sibutlasi said:


> Besides, "Exist the situation that ..." and  "be the case  that ...." are logically indistinguishable glosses.


That's the logic in your mind and perhaps that's why the same verb "be" is used in English "This _is _a book" and "There _is_ a book".  However, that's not the Chinese logic.  We say 这*是*一本书 vs. 这*有*一本书, wherein 这 is NOT the possessor of 书.  Examine the following Chinese stative verbs that involve *没* for negation:  
 他死了父親 (= 他父親死了).  Who vanished?  His father 父親, not him 他.  他又*没*死了父親, 哭得这么伤心干嘛?
他有了钱 (= 他钱有了).  What came into existence?  Money 钱.
The above sentences (他死了父親, 他有了钱) superficially have the S + V + O structures, but many linguistics have argued that they are not transitive verbs.  Ghabi therefore pointed out for you in #2:   


Ghabi said:


> Perhaps it isn't a personal, transitive verb after all and thus behaves differently?


----------



## Sibutlasi

To Skatinginbc in 14#

OK, you did not use " 'remnant' feature"; that was just a shortcut term I used to speed up discussion, but, otherwise, I think it is you that must carefully read what I have written and not create straw men (in your first and third paragraph). And I find your tone unnecessarily aggressive.

Let's be polite and helpful, please.


----------



## Skatinginbc

Sibutlasi said:


> OK, you did not use " 'remnant' feature"; that was just a shortcut term I used to speed up discussion


I’m not sure you get the point.  不有 (bu you), not 没有 (mei you), is the older form (or "remnant feature"), which exists mainly in fixed expressions.  It has been mentioned in Post #4, #9, #10, and again in #14.  


Sibutlasi said:


> Do native speakers perceive any special property in "you3" that explains why it must be negated by means of "méi" contrary to other stative verbs?



  Compare the two: 有 (there is) + N (something) vs. N (something) + 存 (exists). 
This is how I see it:
  The negation for 有 (there is) + N (something) is 没 "méi", which is to define the state of the _following_ noun (e.g., 没水, 没钱, 没良心).  Rule of thumb: 没(有)_ + _Noun (see Post #12).  
The negation for N (something) + *存 *(exists) is 不 “bu”, which is to define the state of the _preceding_ noun (e.g., 屍骨不存 2,500,000 google results vs. 屍骨無存 860,000 vs. 屍骨没存  69).  

  More detailed explanations: 有 "you3" is often followed by a noun that serves as a notional subject, similar to English existential construction “There is a book”, in which “a book” is the notional subject.  有"you3", unlike its English counterpart, does NOT require a dummy grammatical subject like “there” (e.g., 有人在你背后说坏话, 有朋自远方来), nor does it imply an ellipted subject.  A topic, of course, may lead the sentence (e.g., 我有朋友来访, 得去机场一趟).  When used in this way, 是 /shi/ meaning “exist” follows the same pattern.

  In contrast, 存 (and some other existential words) is usually not followed by a noun.  It needs a preposition (在,于, 乎) to go with a noun (e.g., 虽存乎人者, 爱存于心).  Without a preposition, the meaning of 存 + N changes to something else (i.e., transitive e.g., "hold" as in 不存奢望).  When 有 is not followed by a noun and can be replaced by 存 or 在, the negation for it is 不 (e.g., 无奇不有 and 无所不有).


----------



## Sibutlasi

Skatinginbc said:


> I’m not sure you get the point. 不有 (bu you), not 没有 (mei you), is the older form (or "remnant feature"), which exists mainly in fixed expressions. It has been mentioned in Post #4, #9, #10, and again in #14.



You are right, I depended on certain simplifications obtained from grammars and did not pay too much attention to the corrections you and others offered, but there was a reason I will explain in my next post. Bear with me until then.



> Compare the two: 有 (there is) + N (something) vs. N (something) + 存 (exists).
> This is how I see it:
> The negation for 有 (there is) + N (something) is 没 "méi", which is to define the state of the _following_ noun (e.g., 没水, 没钱, 没良心). Rule of thumb: 没(有)_ + _Noun (see Post #12).


 A well-known, but irrelevant, *fact* I was aware of, see my #1, paragraphs 3,4,5


> The negation for N (something) + *存*(exists) is 不 “bu”, which is to define the state of the _preceding_ noun (e.g., 屍骨不存 2,500,000 google results vs. 屍骨無存 860,000 vs. 屍骨没存 69).


 Thank you, that is (presumably) a *fact* I did *not* know, but it is irrelevant here. If anything, those examples simply illustrate cases in which two different predicates, *both stative*, are negated by “méi” in one case and by “bù” in the other. The original contrast was between stative “you3” (in its different senses) and other stative predicates. If “you3” occurs with “bù” in some cases, change the examples if you want: We still need to know the difference between stative “there is”, negated by “méi”, and, say now, stative “exists”, negated by “bù”!



> More detailed explanations: 有 "you3" is often followed by a noun that serves as a notional subject, similar to English existential construction “There is a book”, in which “a book” is the notional subject. 有"you3", unlike its English counterpart, does NOT require a dummy grammatical subject like “there” (e.g., 有人在你背后说坏话, 有朋自远方来), nor does it imply an ellipted subject.


 Unnecessary clarifications; I am fully aware of that, cf. #1, paragraph 4.Thank you, but that is completely irrelevant to the issue.


> A topic, of course, may lead the sentence (e.g., 我有朋友来访, 得去机场一趟). When used in this way, 是 /shi/ meaning “exist” follows the same pattern.


 OK. Add as many facts of the same type as you wish and you will not yet have started explaining anything.



> In contrast, 存 (and some other existential words) is usually not followed by a noun. It needs a preposition (在,于, 乎) to go with a noun (e.g., 虽存乎人者, 爱存于心). Without a preposition, the meaning of 存 + N changes to something else (i.e., transitive e.g., "hold" as in 不存奢望). When 有 is not followed by a noun and can be replaced by 存 or 在, the negation for it is 不 (e.g., 无奇不有 and 无所不有).


 OK, thanks for still more facts, but, again, all that is irrelevant to the issue.

Due to the length limit in force here, I offer a more explicit reply in my next post.

Regards.


----------



## Sibutlasi

Hello again Skatinginbc.

Let me now tell you my own summary of what has been going on here:

  You are right that I had got some *facts*  wrong. In particular, a) I was taking "bù" to be impossible with "you3"  - an assertion you will find in all the grammars written in English  (and several other European languages) aimed at foreign learners of  Chinese, and b) I thought that the negation of "you3" had always been  "méi", not "bù" (= the 'default' hypothesis, since those grammars,  perhaps with the exception of Yuen Ren Chao's, do not provide any  historical information). On that basis, and granted that "bù" is *less* restricted in distribution than "méi", I was ready to misinterpret 'méi' as a 'remnant' feature (*not* in my initial post; only when I became aware of the fact, new to me, that "bù" *does* occur even with "you3" in certain cases). Those were factual mistakes of  mine induced by the inaccuracy/incompleteness of the grammars available  in English, but harmless ones, after all: they do not matter for the  issue I raised, cf. infra. 

  It is true that YangMuye #4, you  in #9, #12, #14, and BODYholic in 10# challenged statement a) with  examples, and that YangMuye #4 (and subsequently you in #14) set me  right as to the fact that “bù” was older and still in use fifty years  ago. Perhaps I did not acknowledge those contributions as I should. I’m  doing so now: thank you, my idea of this area of the ‘grammar’ of  Chinese is now less simplistic than it was.

However, I did not pay too much attention to those factual corrections because they did *not*  affect the real question. What I asked for in #1 (paragraphs 2, 7, 8)  was an *explanation* for the existence of two propositional negation  devices in Chinese, and I did because I could not detect any *significant*  difference either between "you3" (= the obvious case in which “méi” is  found) and other stative predicates, or between the  predicates/predications that must respectively follow "bú/bú shì" and  "méi/méi(you3)". Please refer to my post, #1 above (paragraphs 2 and 7),  where I show that I can already  distinguish different argument  structures and senses of "you3". 

  I also volunteered the *fact* that "Bú shì ...." *can*  mean "It is not the case that...". I did (in #1 paragraph 5) because it  showed that two predicates approximately equivalent to English “is a  fact/is the case that…” can be negated by “méi” or “bù” depending on  circumstances I expected somebody here to clarify. Now,  you claim, in #12, that “bù” can negate only equational ‘shì” (= “be”),  that existential “shì” (like existential “you3”) must be negated by “méi”,  and simply say nothing about the case in which “shì” (like “you3”) is  followed by a full predication (not a predicate!). However, as I said in  #1 (paragraph 5) and subsequently in #13 (paragraph 3), when negation must have the quantifier “dou1” under its scope (not the converse!), as in “Not many Chinese want to learn English”, the sentence is best translated into Chinese as* “Bu2 shi4*  hen3 duo1 ge4 zhong1 guo2 ren2 yao4 xue2 xi2 ying1 yu3”.  Correspondingly, “Not all the Chinese want to learn English” is best  expressed as *“*bu2 *shi4* zhong1 guo3  ren2 dou1 yao4 xue2 xi2 ying1 yu3.” I have obtained those ‘translations’  from two highly educated native speakers I have consulted, and I take  it that my native informants were not deliberately misleading me. [I  suppose I could add, in this respect, that “shì” is often used in the  sense “right, true, correct” referring to a previous statement of a fact  by another speaker, and that one way to respond affirmatively to a  yes-no question is to simply repeat the main verb (presumably “shì”, in  this case). Correspondingly, the negative response is “méiyou3” (if I am  not mistaken). Plus "shì" as a noun also approximately means 'state of affairs', 'situation', 'matter'. Etc. There are more facts I could invoke, but will not in order to avoid possible (but irrelevant) qualifications].

  However, *even if* the ‘Bú shì + predication’ construction were unacceptable and "Bú shì..." were possible only when "shì" is ‘equational “be”’, as you claim in #12, that fact would, again, *not* matter at all: the original issue I raised would still stand in need of explanation! 

  I suspect you do not distinguish between 'knowing that' and 'knowing why'. You can rephrase my original question this way, if you prefer and it becomes clearer to you: 

“I know that, in what concerns Mandarin negation, there are two sets of  predicates, the “bù-taking” set,  = B, and the “méi-taking” set, = M,  and I would like to know what general properties members of those two  sets have, ontologically, logically, and grammatically, that may explain  why two different propositional negation strategies seem needed.” 

  My specific examples were just  that, examples, and I myself invited corrections of factual mistakes or  other marginal matters (see #13, last paragraph). Whether M contains  just “you3” or not, does *not* really matter. Whether B also contains “you3” in special cases, or M also contains “shì” in certain examples, does *not*  really matter, either. As to the predications sometimes following the  stative verbs “you3” and “shì”  (<my claim), I referred to them  because their properties (as those of other complements of “you3” and  “shì”) might contribute to determine the properties of the predicates  “you3+complement” and “shì+complement” *when they happen to take complement clauses*, although I explicitly observed that I could *not* detect any relevant differences *in that respect*,  including the time interval (past, in the case of “méi”, non-past in  that of “bù” - so grammars tend to say, perhaps simplifying too much) at  which states of affairs are presented as *not* holding:  grammars mention it as if it were relevant, but do not explain why, and,  as I said, past, present, and future non-facts are all just ‘non-facts’  until somebody can explain what ontological differences native Mandarin  speakers perceive among them.

  What I expected somebody to tell me was something like this: 

  “As to your first question, the  state of affairs that “you3” (meaning “have”, or “exist”, or “be the  case that”: distinguish if necessary) denotes is/is not nowadays felt to  be different from states like “yào…”, “zài…”, “shì…”,…. etc. because  [REASON]." <...> "Hence, in ‘synchronic terms’, there is/isn’t an  explanation for the alternation between “méi” and “bù”. <…>  [Possible addition]: “Historically, though, “you3” was understood as  [ANALYSIS OF ‘OLD’ PROPERTY “you3”], which set/did not set it apart from  “shì” and other stative predicates." Or, on the contrary: “Even taking  the history of Chinese into account, there is no explanation for the  fact that at some point certain states of affairs started requiring  negation via “méi”, etc.” <...> “As to the second  part of your question, the predications that respectively follow “bú  shì” and “méi you3” differ in that the former denote [type A non-states  of affairs, characterized by the following properties: P1…Pn] whereas  the latter denotes [type B of non-states of affairs, characterized by  the following properties: P1…Pn]."<...> Possible addition: "The  time interval at which a state of affairs is presented as *not*  holding is/is not relevant, and determines/does not determine the use  of “bù” or “méi” before “shì” or “méiyou3” because [REASON]."  <...> Etc.

  Instead of that, what you have  offered me so far is (welcome) corrections of overly simplistic  generalizations, new (mostly irrelevant) facts, unnecessary restatements  of what I already knew, completely unnecessary tuition on what is a  topic-comment construction or how 'translation equivalents' may be  misleading, misinterpretations/representations of rather precise remarks  of mine, and rather harsh complaints about my misunderstanding of what,  if anything, is the ‘remnant’ device (already explained) and about my  lack of acknowledgement of facts that you consider very valuable but I,  for reasons now very clearly stated, *do not*.

Which does *not* mean that I do not appreciate all the attention, time,  and effort that all the participants have invested in trying to reply to  my question to the best of their understanding. 
I do, sincerely, and very much.

Regards


----------



## Sibutlasi

YangMuye said:


> The question sounds like "why some verbs in English are irregular" or "why the be verb is the most irregular verb".
> 
> Chinese negation is very complex.
> We historically used wu2 wei4 bu4 fu2 mo4 wu4...
> There were no strict logical difference among them. Their usages contrasted and overlapped in different ages.
> bu2 you3 was still seen in some classic style written Chinese 50 years ago.
> mei2you3 is relative newer than mei2 and the usage is still changing. The uses of mei2zai4 and bu2zai4 is increasing...
> More over mei2you3 is still different from mei2, not in meaning, but in the position it is allowed to appear.




I will introduce short comments of mine between parenthesis in order to make clear the import of each statement with respect to the question raised in #1(as I see it):



YangMuye: "The question sounds like "why some verbs in English are irregular" or "why the be verb is the most irregular verb".


(> Sibutlasi: To YangMuye’s first impulse, to dismiss the question as ridiculous and compare it to why English irregular verbs exist, or why “be” is so irregular, I have already replied in #7.)


YangMuye: “Chinese negation is very complex.” 


(Sibutlasi: Sure? How complex? More complex than negation in Latin, Spanish, or French? I very much doubt it ! But, be that as it may, that statement does not say anything one way or the other. It amounts to “I do not know”).


YangMuye: “We historically used wu2 wei4 bu4 fu2 mo4 wu4... 


(Sibutlasi: All of them as propositional negations? As far as I know, “wú” is not nowadays a propositional negation. Aren´t you mixing propositional with non-propositional negation devices here? If so, those facts can hardly be relevant to my question; on the contrary, they are likely to make it murkier than it is. But, even if all those words were propositional negations, so what? Listing them does not remotely start answering my question.)


YangMuye: “There were no strict logical difference[s?] among them. Their usages *contrasted* and *overlapped* in different ages.” [emphasis mine, S.]


(Sibutlasi: The first sentence has to be proved, not just stated; the second seems contradictory with the first as well as internally contradictory: if they “contrasted” they did not just “overlap”, and vice-versa. Either YangMuye specifies much more or this is another vacuous, and useless, if not plainly contradictory, statement)


YangMuye: “bu2 you3 was still seen in some classic style written Chinese 50 years ago.” 


(Sibutlasi: OK, new fact; it corrects simplifications found in all learners' grammars that I had assumed as accurate. If that (and the following sentence) is all, it suggests that “méi” is encroaching upon the former ‘territory’ of “bù” and, so, that an (ontological?) distinction there used to be is about to disappear. But which?)


YangMuye: “mei2you3 is relative[ly?] newer than mei2 and the usage is still changing. The uses of mei2zai4 and bu2zai4 is [are?] increasing...” [sic]


(Sibutlasi: Are *both* “méizài” and “búzài” increasing? That would definitely imply a gradual collapse (in progress) of any opposition there might initially exist between “méi” and “bù”, and thereby offers a nice argument for the relevance of the question raised in #1, which YangMuye does not consider worth answering, see his first sentence above.)


YangMuye: "More over mei2you3 is still different from mei2, not in meaning, but in the position it is allowed to appear."

(Sibutlasi: new irrelevant fact)

In sum: In this case, YangMuye has nothing to offer, really; the facts he chooses to mention rather suggest that (again!) there are not any hard and fast rules. He does not know what the underlying cause of the apparent mess is. But, if he does not know, why hasn´t he left the question alone to somebody who does (if anybody does)? [This, of course, applies to several other participants. I have nothing special against YangMuye]. As far as I know, members are not expected to answer any question raised here, are they? That would be utter madness! In a teacher<>student-like situation (and this forum is one, where I am the ignorant student and other people may 'know' and be able to enlighten me), the 'teacher' must stick to the 'student's' question and tell him what he wants to know (if he can) [= Grice's Principle of Relevance] or just keep silent (if he cannot). In this case, 'teachers' can afford to refrain from answering questions (which real teachers cannot do without some risk of losing their good reputation), so there is no excuse to intervene at all costs. Telling the asker what he already knows or telling him irrelevant things the teacher himself happens to know is childish cheating, and wastes everybody's time. Threads could surely be much shorter, more concise, easier to follow, and incomparably more informative, if everybody observed Grice's Cooperation Principles and refrained from polluting the forum's conversational environment.

S.


----------



## Ghabi

Hello! As you may have already noticed, bu4 is used to negate a property or an action ("A is not B"), while mei2 to deny the existence of an entity ("X doesn't exist"). shi4 is about identification, and when it's negated, that's still a negation of identification, not that of existence.

I don't know if that makes sense to you, but the ideas of identification and existence don't seem to overlap in the Chinese language. And it's not whether the predicate is "static" or not that decides whether bu4 or mei2 is used, but whether it involves the negation of the existence of an entity. For example,

-bu2shi4 wo3 bu4 xi2huan1 ni3 "[The truth] is not that I don't love you-->Not that I don't love you, but [something else]"
-wo3 mei2you3 xi2huan1 guo4 ni3 "The fact that I ever loved you doesn't exist-->I never loved you"

-wo3 bu2 pa4 "I'm not afraid"
-wo3 mei2 pa4 "The fact that I was afraid doesn't exist-->I wasn't afraid"

That's why how you understand the "noun+you3+noun" structure does matter. If you understand it as "A possesses B", then the use of mei2 with you3 doesn't make sense, as mei2 doesn't negate the verb following it (that's the job of bu4), but the existence of the entity following it. (Actually Skatinginbc says to the same effect in one of his posts above.)

I don't know if all these point to you something like an answer to your original question.


----------



## Skatinginbc

Sibutlasi said:


> when negation must have the quantifier “*dou1*” under its scope (not the converse!), as in “Not many Chinese want to learn English”, the sentence is best translated into Chinese as* “*Bu2 shi4...”



A: All Chinese want to learn English. 
B: No (Bu4).  It _is not _(Bu2 shi4) that all Chinese want to learn English (= "Not all Chinese want to learn English").
==> shi4, in this case, is a copula (linking verb), not an existential verb. 

Compare to: 
A: 他们全都饿死了吗? Ta1 men2 quan2 *dou1* e4 si3 le ma?  “Did they all starve to death?” 
B: 没有. 他们没有全都饿死. Mei2 you3.  Ta1 men2 *mei2 you3* quan2 *dou1* e4 si3.  “It did not happen.  Not all of them starved to death.”


----------



## Sibutlasi

Qualification to my #3

I think I owe apologies to Ghabi #2, #20, in particular, Skatinginbc #12, and followers of this thread in general. I explain:

When  I wrote #3 (I can´t believe it!) I temporarily forgot a basic principle  of foreign language study: two expressions can be  translation-equivalent and yet *say very different things*  (= a special case of Quine's indeterminacy principle). Of course, since  I cannot read Chinese, I must depend on bilingual dictionaries (and  grammars of Chinese written in English), and since all the bilingual  dictionaries I have seen give 'have', 'possess', 'own' as one of the  meanings of "you3" (often the first one), 'exist' being the other, I  assumed that native speakers of Chinese would literally have the same  intuitions, and that monolingual dictionaries would list them. However, *if*, to a native speaker of Chinese, "you3" means 'exist', but *not also*  'have', 'own', etc., then, obviously, the subject of "wo3 [mei2] you3  qian2" will not be a 'Possessor', the sentence will be 'existential' in a  broad sense, and "wo3" will have a Locative-like role (= my guess at  the end of #3) or some other role - difficult to label - that natives would  perhaps want to gloss in English with the help of prepositions like "to"  (cf. the 'possessive dative' of Latin) or more complex expressions like  "at my disposal", or, simply, "as regards me", +[exists money]", which  would after all approximate "wo3" to a Topic (as Skatinginbc #12  observed).  Now, that was a beginner's methodological mistake of mine: one  should not make any claims upon the 'translations' bilingual  dictionaries tend to offer, .
 I mention this now, because  re-reading Charles N. Li & Sandra A. Thompson's Mandarin Chinese. A  Functional Reference Grammar, U. of California Press (1989), pp.  513-514, I found that kind of interpretation. Nevertheless, whereas in  other existential sentences with "you3" there is an explicitly locative  phrase preceding the verb, in "wo3 you3 qian2" nothing marks "wo3" as  locative (or anything but a 'subject', with the semantic roles a person  may play, including Possessor). What's more, even if the example had  started with the name of a 'place', say, a sentence like "<*This house*  - you3 - five rooms>", would there be any way to decide whether  "this house" is interpreted as a 'locus' (of existence) or as a  figurative Possessor (> an instance of 'personification')?


----------



## Skatinginbc

Sibutlasi said:


> whereas in  other existential sentences with  "you3" there is an explicitly locative  phrase preceding the verb, in  "wo3 you3 qian2" nothing marks "wo3" as  locative


In post #12, I gave the following examples: 屋内*没*人.  我(身上)*没*钱
屋内没(有)人 wu1 nei4 mei2 (you3) ren2 "The interior of the house, no person exists" (= "There is no one in the house") 
我身上没(有)钱 wo3 shen1 shang4 mei2 (you3) qian2 "The top of my body, no money exists" (= "There is no money with me")
我没(有)钱 wo3 mei2 (you3) qian2 "I, no money exists" (= "I have no money"). 

"The interior of the house", "the top of my body", and "I" are all noun  phrases, not "full" locative adverbial phrases.  The lack of a  preposition (e.g., zai4 "at, on, in") before those noun phrases makes  them not a "full" or true locative (Compare: 没人*在*屋内  vs. 没人屋内 ).  And that is the major argument for  treating them as Topic rather than usual Locative when those locative-like noun phrases are used to lead the sentences.

If you accept the above analysis (i.e, Topic + 有/没有 + Noun), then the following becomes easy: 
他还没(有)学会走路, 就在学飞 ta1 hai2 mei2 (you3) xue2 hui 4 zou3 lu4, jou4 zai4 xue2 fei1.
He (TOPIC), _having learned to walk_ (NOUN) does not _*exist *_yet, is then learning to fly ==> He is learning to fly without having learned to walk.  
他有钱就花 ta1 you3 qian2 jou4 hua1.
He (TOPIC), _money_ (NOUN) *exists*, then spends it ==> Whenever he has money, he squanders it.


----------



## tarlou

I haven't finished reading this lengthy thread, and don't have an answer to the question. But as I saw the last two posts, I have to differ.

To my intuition as a native speaker, "wo3 you3 qian2" is the same as "I own money" (SVO) instead of topic-comment, and "wo3" is not a locus. Here "you3" means possess or own, as shown in your dictionary. "wo3 shen1 shang4 you3 qian2" is a very different thing. In that sentence, "you3" means "exist". Your dictionaries are correct in both meaning and intuition. My Chinese-Chinese dictionary also list them as two different meanings.

I don't understand why it matters to consider "you3" as "exist". We may think about the more explicit words 拥有(own), 持有(hold as in 'holding passport'), 享有(enjoy something you own), 具有(have a feature), etc. They are clearly 'possess' instead of 'exist'. Their negations are all 我不x有something. (We only consider a simple negation instead of a real context that tenses, special cases are involved and 没 is needed.)

For the original question, I would say this is just a special case if I have to give an answer. All human languages have lots of conventions that if you remove them artificially the language will become 'cleaner' in terms of logic and grammar. But a real language is not just grammar and logic, especially Chinese (where ancient, modern, dialect grammars are mixed). Even if you make a sentence that is consistent with all Chinese grammar books exist in the world, that can still sound weird to native speakers' ears. For example, in some places there has to be a two-syllable word, and you can't use a one-syllable word even if that word is perfect in meaning and logic. Chinese people also like to adopt words or structures without considering the grammar. Therefore, at least to my impression, Chinese is much less 'grammatical' than English, and you can't hope to find universal rules for everything. (Another possibility is that there exist good grammars but I haven't seen them. Anyway it does not mean Chinese is impossible to learn if you use your right brain more.)


----------



## Skatinginbc

tarlou said:


> My Chinese-Chinese dictionary also list them as two different meanings.


My Chinese-Chinese dictionary (中華民國教育部國語辭典, Mandarin Dictionary published by Ministry of Education, Republic of China) lists only one definition for you3 as a verb: 表事實、狀況的正面存在 ("exist")，與「無」相對。如：「有困難」、「有利有弊」、「有學問」、「有錢」、「擁有」、「面有飢色」。  In Old Chinese, 有, a 会意字 meaning "手中有物", is an existential copula meaning "there is, to have".


tarlou said:


> To my intuition as a native speaker...


My intuition as a native speaker: 
有 means "there is" or "have" (for lack of a better translation), somewhat like "have" in "I _have_ learned this", a concept hard to explain.  For me, the 有 _you3_ in 我有錢 _wo3 you3 qian2_ means the same as the one in the following sentences:   
Ni3 _*you3*_ xiang4 ta1 xue2 dao4 ren4 he2 dong1 xi1 ma? (= "*Have *you learned anything from him?").
Xiang1 Gang3 *you3 *hen3 duo1 hao3 wan2 de di4 fang1 (= Hongkong *has* many interesting places = There are many interesting places in Hongkong.)


tarlou said:


> We may think about the more explicit words 拥有(own), 持有(hold as in  'holding passport'), 享有(enjoy something you own), 具有(have a feature),  etc. They are clearly 'possess' instead of 'exist'. Their negations are  all 我不x有something.


According to you, 有 in the following clearly means "possess": 我不拥有, 不持有, 不享有, 不具有, 没有钱.  May I ask why "possess" is sometimes negated by 不 and yet sometimes by 没 (e.g., 没有钱)?   Because "Chinese people also like to adopt words or structures without  considering the grammar"?


----------



## tarlou

Skatinginbc said:


> My Chinese-Chinese dictionary (中華民國教育部國語辭典, Mandarin Dictionary published by Ministry of Education, Republic of China) lists only one definition for you3 as a verb: 表事實、狀況的正面存在 ("exist")，與「無」相對。如：「有困難」、「有利有弊」、「有學問」、「有錢」、「擁有」、「面有飢色」。


《现代汉语词典》 does the opposite.



Skatinginbc said:


> 有 means "there is" or "have" (for lack of a better translation), somewhat like "have" in "I _have_ learned this", a concept hard to explain.  For me, the 有 _you3_ in 我有錢 _wo3 you3 qian2_ means the same as the one in the following sentences:
> Ni3 _*you3*_ xiang4 ta1 xue2 dao4 ren4 he2 dong1 xi1 ma? (= "*Have *you learned anything from him?").
> Xiang1 Gang3 *you3 *hen3 duo1 hao3 wan2 de di4 fang1 (= Hongkong *has* many interesting places = There are many interesting places in Hongkong.)



I have heard sentences like "Ni3 _*you3*_ xiang4 ta1 xue2 dao4 ren4 he2 dong1 xi1 ma?" many times from Internet and TV. However, this is completely ungrammatical to me although I understand the meaning accurately. To me the "you3" in "wo you qian" is clearly different from both your sentences.

Therefore, I think there are some differences between Taiwan Mandarin and dialects in Beijing.



Skatinginbc said:


> According to you, 有 in the following clearly means "possess": 我不拥有, 不持有, 不享有, 不具有, 没有钱.  May I ask why "possess" is sometimes negated by 不 and yet sometimes by 没 (e.g., 没有钱)?



That's the question of the thread and I don't know the answer. But what I have stated are facts in my dialect.


----------



## Skatinginbc

Tarlou, let's temporarily put 没有钱 aside.  Can you explain what 有 means in Xiang1 Gang3 *you3 *hen3 duo1 hao3 wan2 de di4 fang1 (= Hongkong *has* many interesting places)?   Do you see it as an existential verb, a verb of possession, or something else?  Why should it be negated by 没, not 不?
Do you see 天 and 人 in 天有不测风云，人有旦夕祸福 as "locus of existence" or "figurative Possessors"?  My question is basically the same as Sibutlasi's:  


Sibutlasi said:


> if the example had  started with the name of a 'place', say, a sentence like "<*This house*   - you3 - five rooms>", would there be any way to decide whether   "this house" is interpreted as a 'locus' (of existence) or as a   figurative Possessor (> an instance of 'personification')?


Obviously, I see it as a "locus of existence".  I'm curious how Tarlou, whose 普通话 I secretly hold as the "Standard", would analyze it.


----------



## tarlou

I think this is an existential verb (if di4fang1 means a physical place rather than "aspect").
I'd negate it by 没 (but rephrasing is needed to make the sentence sound natural), but I have no idea about the reason.
Negating by 不 will give a very different meaning "Isn't true that HK has many interesting places". That's almost all I can tell about grammar.

Oh, I think I understand why you were claiming that you3 means "exist". It is true that existential verbs are often negated by mei2:
窗外长着一棵树==〉窗外没长着一棵树
那里站着一个人==〉那里没站着一个人
But this is still not a universal rule:
太阳系里不存在第10颗行星 (To me 没存在 is weird)

Edit: Sorry I didn't see the last update. 天有不测风云，人有旦夕祸福 is a difficult one to tell. I think I'd consider it (at least the second 有) as yet another meaning: 表示发生或出现：他有病了；形势有了新发展；他在大家的帮助下有了很大的进步. (This is copied from my dictionary.) To me, 人 in the second half is the "subject" instead of a locus. However, I'm not so sure about the first half. In spoken language, for example, 天上有云彩, I'd consider it as locus. Since 天有不测风云 means more than 天上有云彩, I'm not so sure actually.

Well, the last sentence made me a bit embarrassed  I was not thinking that my analysis should be considered as the standard even for my own dialect, not to mention 普通话. I was just stating how I see it. Everyone can have his/her view, including those non-native learners. To me, it is too common that people have different views about Chinese.


----------



## Sibutlasi

Hello, Ghabi #20.

*If*  it were true, it would make a lot of sense to me, and it would be a  first step towards the explanation I asked for ! The problem is that  it *may* *not* be true, or not the whole  story. As you probably know, well-known scholars like Yuen Ren Chao in  his A Grammar of Spoken Chinese, pp. 439, 664, 782 (et passim), or Li  & Thompson in Mandarin Chinese. A Functional Reference Grammar, p.  421, or Yip Po-Ching & Rimmington in  Chinese. A Comprehensive  Grammar, pp. 121-123 et passim, offer an alternative explanation based  on the idea that "mei2" is necessary when events admit completion and  completion is not achieved. However, let me refer to your explanation,  in particular.

Note that in your first example (= "bu2shi4 wo3  bu4 xi2huan1 ni3") "shì" has no visible subject. Since English sentences  must have a subject, in your translation you have provided one, and you  have chosen "the truth", but (as far as I know, you correct me if I'm  mistaken) you could just as well have chosen "it", and the result would  then have been "It is not that I don´t love you", a perfect English  sentence, and, arguably, a more accurate translation, since "the truth"  is never mentioned in the original Chinese sentence. And with the  existence of that perfectly legitimate and possibly preferable  alternative translation all the trouble starts.

As you surely  know, in that kind of English construction "it" is a 'dummy'. A dummy  (“it”, “there”) cannot have a referent of its own; 'dummy IT' merely  anticipates the only 'argument' "be" has there: "that I don´t love you".  Correspondingly, ‘dummy’ “there” anticipates a noun phrase (which  refers to an entity, not a state of affairs) and is encoded as a  complement of ‘existential BE’, as in “There is a coffee-shop”. Note  that “*There is that I don´t love you” is not well-formed: in English,  dummy “it" and dummy "there" are in 'complementary distribution'; dummy  “it” fills the subject slot and anticipates a *clausal* complement of “be”, whereas dummy “there” fills the subject slot and anticipates a *noun phrase* complement of “be”, and they *cannot* be interchanged.

 In other words: that kind of "be", in *both* constructions (with dummy “it” and dummy “there”, respectively) is a *one-place* predicate, and it *cannot* *be identificational*.

Identificational "be" (like identificational "shì" and similar verbs in other languages) is a *two-place* predicate (Actually, Yuen Ren Chao treated copula "shì" as a transitive verb, with subject *and object*,  cf. his A Grammar of Spoken Chinese, p. 718). So, identificational  "shi4" must have two 'arguments' (with two referents), like "=" in "A = B"  (e.g., "X is my younger brother" > "X shi4 wo3 di4di"; just replace X  with a proper noun or a referential noun phrase like "zhe4 ge  nan2hair2", etc.). The standard (and, as far as I know, universal!) test  for identificational "be" (and "shì", "ser", "sein", "être", etc.) is  'reversibility': if "A is B" is correct in language L, "B is A" must be  correct in L, too. The English pair {"that boy", "my younger brother"}  satisfies the test; on the contrary, the pair {"that boy", "an  engineer"} would not (cf. "That boy is an engineer" but not "*An  engineer is that boy"; parallel examples can be built in Mandarin).  Obviously, Chinese sentences starting with “Bú shi4+ Predication cannot  be reverted because "shi4" does not have two arguments A, B. Perhaps you  feel that it means "is true", but even that would not make it  identificational; it would make it a copula of the kind used to  introduce a predicate, not a second argument: X is a member of {True} =  the set x, such that x is true. 

That second kind of “be”, as in “That boy is an  engineer/clever/afraid”, etc., is a “copula” (roughly,  an auxiliary that helps convert the name of an entity or class into a  predicate) and says that X belongs to the class C (where “C” is  described by a predicate, e.g., “afraid”, "an engineer"). That kind of  “be” corresponds to Chinese “shì” only when it is ‘emphatic’, as in “He  ÍS an engineer” (e.g., contrary to what the previous speaker has claimed).  Otherwise, class-membership-expressing “be” is usually not needed in  Chinese: you say “ta1 gao1”, “ta1 hen3 qiong1”, etc.  Anyway, what matters here is that copular ('classifying') “be” (or  emphatic copular “shì” in Mandarin) is *not* a *two-place* *predicate*, *either.*  [Pace Yuen Ren Chao, op. cit., p. 718, paragraph 2]. Only one of the  two elements that flank 'classifying be' (and classifying "shi4") is  referential; the other one is the name of a set/class (= a predicate)  and the construction is not reversible: cf. *Tall/An engineer is he,  *Rich/At home is he.” What it does is take a minimal predication pattern  like “He + tall” or “He + an engineer” and say that the situation it  depicts is the case in the present, was the case in the past or will be  the case in the future. Hence, “attributive” BE is a higher-order  existential predicate; it claims that a certain state of affairs is the  case (was the case, or will be the case). Copula "shi4", furthermore, is  omissible between noun phrases, unless it is emphatic, although not  when it is negated (according to Chao).

There is a  third type of English “be” relevant to the present discussion (as a  possible translation-equivalent of the "shi4" in "Bu4 shi4 wo3 xi3huan1  ta1" or the cases of quantification I myself cited in the first place):  so-called 'existential be', as in “There is a problem” or “There is a  student waiting for you”. 'Existential be' is also a* one-place*  predicate (recall that “there” is a dummy, not an argument with  independent reference capacity), the existential contruction is *not*  reversible (cf. “*A problem is there”), and so, on both accounts, in  “there is/are” “be” cannot be identificational, either. A marginal  variant of 'existential BE' is 'absolute BE', as in "God ÍS" (= "God  exists"). It obviously expresses *existence*, as its name correctly indicates. And note that what follows “There is” may be the name *of an entity* (cf. “There is a problem”) or the name of *a state of affairs*  (cf. “There is [a student waiting for you]”, alternatively just “A  student is waiting for you”). And recall my pointing to the fact that  many nouns are ‘eventive’, including “war”, “revolution”, “accident”,  “meeting”, etc., and that the difference between existence of a thing  and existence of an event/a state of affairs is a low-level distinction,  irrelevant at this level of analysis). 

With all this in place, we can go back to the examples: a literal translation of your first example would be, simply, "*Is* not I don´t love you", or, in idiomatic English, "It is not that I don´t love you", and that "be", of course, is *not* identificational, but *existential*.  "It is not that I don´t love you” in its turn amounts to "There is no  situation ¬L, such that ¬L = I not love you", where the underlying  existential operator is explicitly revealed. [Actually, the expression  you chose, "the Truth", is a logician's name for *the set of all really existing states of affairs*,  or the set of states of affairs that exist in the 'real world'. That is  why logicians say, following Frege, that all true propositions denote  the same entity, T = Truth, and all false propositions also denote the  same entity, ¬T: all are names of 'the world', 'perspectives about the  world', names of situations that exist or do not exist in a certain  ‘world’, or, of course in all previous 'worlds' throughout the life of  the speaker, the history of mankind, etc., or in all future worlds,  hypothetical worlds, whatever is the case]. 

It follows that your  second example (= "wo3 mei2you3 xi2huan1 guo4 ni3" = "I never loved  you") is also existential, the only difference being that the only  argument of "mei2you3" is a situation that has never been the case in  any so far accessible world (not just the present one). The same reasoning  goes for your third and fourth examples: What you say about the  difference between “wo3 bu2 pa4” “wo3 mei2 pa4” could then be expressed  in existential terms as follows: There is no state of affairs in the  present world such that it is a state of fear and I am the fearer”, vs.  “There never has been a state of affairs in any world so far such  that it was a state of fear and I was the fearer”. 
Which leads me  back to one of the key aspects of my initial post: why should an  absolute non-fact be grammatically treated in a different way from a  current (or a future) non-fact and require "mei2..." instead of "bú...",  or "you3…" instead of "shi4…"? [Note that lack of completion amounts to  the non-existence of the event, and so that there is no corresponding  'fact' in the relevant world(s)].  

So,  although your intuitions are interesting, in my view, for the reasons  explained above, the opposition “bu4”<> “mei2” is not that of  ‘negative identification’ vs. ‘non-existence’. The kind of "shi4" that  appears in "bu2shi4 wo3 bu4 xi2huan1 ni3" (as in my original examples  negating universal quantification) is 'intransitive' (= one-place) and seems  'existential', as I claimed from the start. Let me finish citing what  Chao writes (A Grammar of Spoken Chinese, p. 719) about "shi4":  "Existence can be more explicitly expressed by 'you3' 'there is', but the force of 'shi4...' is "*there is something* and that something is ...".

Regards


----------



## Sibutlasi

Ghabi said:


> Hello! As you may have already noticed,[...]


Hello again Ghabi 

In my full reply to your suggestions (#29) I forgot something: As to your last-but-one  paragraph, I am not sure what “the entity  following it” refers to. If it  refers to “qian2”, “mei2you3 qian2”  should mean, according to your  terms, “There is/Exists no money”, but  then I do not understand the role  of “wo3”. A locative? Is it my  hypothetical “wo3 li3” in disguise, as I  suggested? Is it a dative (=  for/to me) in disguise? If, on the  contrary, with “the entity following  it” you refer to “you3 qian2”, the  latter is not really an ‘entity’ (=  a 'saturated whole'), but a  ‘property’ (= “have money”, a one-place  predicate awaiting a proper  subject that ‘saturates it’ and makes it a  state of affairs: “X you3  qian2”). If “mei2” negates its existence,  according to your terms, then  the sentence should be glossed as “There  is no property P, such that P =  have money”, but, again, I still do not  see how to integrate “wo3”. The  obvious way is to assign to it the  subject + possessor roles. In that  case the sentence could be glossed  as “There is no property P, such that  P = “have money” and P applies to  “wo3””, which is just a fancy way of  representing in logical terms the  meaning of “I don’t have any money”.


Skatinginbc said:


> A: All Chinese want to learn English.
> B: No (Bu4).  It _is not _(Bu2 shi4) that all Chinese want to learn English (= "Not all Chinese want to learn English").
> [...]


Thanks Skatinginbc, but see my reply to Ghabi #20 in #29 and #30.


Skatinginbc said:


> In post #12, I gave the following examples:[...]


I have a more restricted concept of 'Topic', but I accept that a Chinese 'topic' may extend to cases I would not call 'topics' (just as Chinese 'subjects' include expressions very loosely related to predicates). If I did not have to depend on English to say all this such terminological issues would perhaps not arise (although 'functional(ist) linguists' and Chomskian ones also disagree as to what is a Topic, even in English!).


tarlou said:


> I haven't finished reading this lengthy thread, and don't have an answer to the question. But as I saw the last two posts, I have to differ.[...]


Thanks, tarlou. It is important to me to know how native Chinese speakers 'perceive' "you3", "mei2", etc. Of course, I broadly agree with your last paragraph. I may some time ask here about 'rhythm' as a filter on the acceptability of otherwise syntactically well-formed sentences, too . Also, that Chinese is less depending on strict 'grammar' than English has been a favourite idea ever since Wilhelm von Humboldt published his famous letter to Abel Rémusat. However, negation is too important a device, it is at the core of any linguistic system, and to me a good level of understanding of the principles that govern it is essential. I'm already willing to make more use of the right hemisphere of my brain, but on learning the lexicon, the characters, perhaps, idioms, and generally marginal matters.  I do hope somebody else (apart from myself!) can benefit from the considerable time and effort that we are investing in this.


----------



## Skatinginbc

tarlou said:


> 太阳系里不存在第10颗行星


That structure seems to be one of those recent products that we see many times on TV and Internet, are able to understand their meanings, but may disagree with each other on their grammaticality.  The examples of 存在 in dictionaries I have consulted are all intransitive (e.g., 盐以溶液的形式存在于海洋里, 知礼乐所存在也).  As I have discussed in Post #16, there are two types of existential verbs in Chinese: (1) Existential copula ("have") + N ==> "there is N".  This type takes  没 for negation.  (2) N + Existential Intransitive ==> "N exists".  This type takes 不 for negation.  存在 (an intransitive verb) is usually negated by 不.  That 不存在 sounds better in your sentence is probably due to collocation.


----------



## tarlou

Skatinginbc said:


> That structure seems to be one of those recent products that we see many times on TV and Internet,[...]



Interesting. But I'm not sure how many the transitive verbs meaning "exist" there are. 有 and 存在 (if counted) are the only two that I can think of. The examples I gave in #28 (长着、站着) are more like intransitive verbs (their subjects are following them) to me.

Anyway, I'm not so interested in grammar. "collocation" is already a good explanation to me. (And I'd also use it for my version of 有 and 没有.)
I'm quite curious if these sentences (found in a dictionary) sound good for you:
双方观点存在着明显分歧
事情已经解决，不存在任何问题

Edit: I just realized 这里放着一张桌子 and 放 is indeed a transitive verb. So forget about the first paragraph.


----------



## Skatinginbc

tarlou said:


> I'm quite curious if these sentences (found in a dictionary) sound good for you: 双方观点存在着明显分歧; 事情已经解决，不存在任何问题


They sound good.  You prove your point.  I don't know why 太阳系里不存在第10颗行星 (likewise 花园里不存在橄榄树) sounds awfully strange to me, and yet the examples you just gave sound good.


----------



## Ghabi

Sibutlasi said:


> Hello, Ghabi #20.


Hello again!


> If it were true, it would make a lot of sense to me, and it would be a first step towards the explanation I asked for ! The problem is that it may not be true, or not the whole story.


I understand that the purpose of this thread to try to make the usage (mei2 specifically for negating you3) make sense, and what I said above was only an attempt to make it make sense. Of course we can simply dismiss the question with "This is an irregular usage. Period!", but then I'm sure that's not what you want. I simply took a shot (probably a desperate one), and please ignore what I said above (and the few things -- just a few, don't worry! -- I'm going to say) if you find them unreasonable.

I think the main reason of my regarding you3 exclusively as an existential verb in Mandarin was that in ancient Chinese you3 can actually be negated by bu4 when it's used as a transitive verb meaning "own; possess; take". In ancient Chinese the usage is like this as far as I can remember,



xPositiveNegativeto existyou3wu2 or wu2you3to possessyou3 (see _Book of Songs_, for example)bu4you3 (see _Tao Te Ching_, for example)


The fact that bu4you3 is not used in Mandarin had led me to believe that you3 had lost its transitive power in the modern language.

I wonder, though, if you3 as "to possess" is making a come-back in contemporary speech, since some people like to say you3zhe, as if it were just another stative verb. Perhaps people will say bu4you3 too, in our lifetime. I don't have the crystal ball.


> The kind of "shi4" that appears in "bu2shi4 wo3 bu4 xi2huan1 ni3" (as in my original examples negating universal quantification) is 'intransitive' (= one-place) and 'existential', as I claimed from the start. Let me finish citing what Chao writes (A Grammar of Spoken Chinese, p. 719) about "shi4": "Existence can be more explicitly expressed by 'you3' 'there is', but the force of 'shi4...' is "there is something and that something is ...".


For me, shi4 always links up the things, although one of them may be unsaid. One can fill up the unsaid word as "situation/reality/truth". The exact choice doesn't seem to matter to me. (Compare Japanese, in which an utterance often ends with the words "n desu" or "nan desu", which also translates "is not that ...", without stating "what" is not that.)

The observation (I don't call it a "fact") that "existence" and "identification" are expressed differently in Chinese has been discussed much, especially by the philosophy people, since it has implications for the translation of Western philosophy into Chinese, as the same verb-to-be in an Indo-European language (such as Greek εἰμί) has to be rendered into two or more different words in Chinese.

I'm not saying what you say is wrong, of course. It's just that what you say doesn't conform to my understanding/bias of the language.


Sibutlasi said:


> A locative? Is it my hypothetical “wo3 li3” in disguise, as I suggested? Is it a dative (= for/to me) in disguise?


As Chinese is not an inflected language, I don't know if it's meaningful to call it "locative/ablative/genitive/dative" or whatever. I don't think it's the possessor, simply because I don't think you3 is a "real verb" in Mandarin (as explained above). In real life, of course I would just tell a Chinese learner that "wo3 mei2 qian2" means "I have no money" or "no tengo dinero", instead of fancy constructions like "As to me, money doesn't exist".

Again, please ignore all these if you find them nonsense. I'm not a linguist and I don't have too strong opinions on these things. Most of the things I said were said specifically for this thread, and for this thread alone. I don't really think about these things too much. Please bear with me if you find what I said complete rubbish and a waste of forum space. Good luck with your study and enjoy the forum!


----------



## Sibutlasi

Ghabi said:


> Hello again!
> 
> I understand that the purpose of this thread to try to make the usage   (mei2 specifically for negating you3) make sense[...]


Hello again 

You must forgive me if I exceeded myself at proving that your former   explanation could not stand. I assure you that I meant my initial   question as a means to find out whether native speakers had intuitions   that could explain the facts and generalizations (but not   'explanations'!) I keep finding in the grammars and   dictionaries I can read. Then, as people started defending various   traditional views - most also found in those grammars - I was led to 'argue'   in some detail myself, but I would be much happier if my doubts   immediately encountered convincing explanations. I just want to   understand in order to learn better, and without relying too much on   memory (because I no longer have the memory I used to have); I'm not   trying to use this forum in any other way. If you think that I'm trying   to fly before I can walk, I immediately grant that it may seem   so, but I cannot help asking "why" when I come across an unexpected   fact! 

 Even if I expressed to you my skepticism about your (and others') attempt   at explanation, I do not find what you say nonsense at all; it is   interesting, and must itself be explained. Actually, speakers of   Indoeuropean languages in which subjects can be left unpronounced   (so-called 'pro-drop' languages), e.g., Spanish (and Italian), also feel   that "es" (approximately "is", "shi4") 'links two things' (in e.g.,   Spanish "No es que no te quiera" = approximately: "Bu2 shi4 wo3 bu4   xi3huan1?/ai4? ni3"), although they are unable to prove that the   'missing' subject is "the fact", "the truth", or something else (at   bottom because in such constructions there is no missing argument,   although in other cases the subject is omitted and can be   straightforwardly 'recovered' from the 'co-text' or the 'context'; that is what makes natives expect a subject).   However, there surely is something else that induces speakers to   think of such uses of "be" (Spanish "es", etc.) as transitive [The   Spanish counterpart of copula "be" treats the following noun phrases and   adjectives as objects! - exactly the same Chao claims with respect to   copula "shi4"]. And yet, all I said about Chinese "shi4" in my earlier   reply to your post holds of Spanish "es", Italian "é", etc., as well.  By  this I mean that I understand your intuitions very well, I think.

What you say about identity and existence in Chinese is also perfectly coherent, and the issue is a major one in all Indoeuropean languages, too, as in the philosophy of language. [Can you guess why English   "be" has such diverse forms as "be", "am", "is", "was/were" (or Latin   has "essere", "sum", "est", "fui", etc.)? > Simplified answer: In   early Indoeuropean, several roots with meanings comparable to those of   "be", "exist", "have" or "become" came to constitute a rather   opportunistic full paradigm for a new 'verb' "be", but, of course, the   original meanings remained detectable in all sorts of ripples in the   resulting grammars of IE languages. This is a very complex area in IE languages, too,   although propositional negation eventually adopted a relatively 'clean'   strategy (in several IE languages, perhaps not in all), if you leave 'monsters' like English 'dummy "do"' alone].

I also understand and share your view as regards what a beginner should be taught   about "wo3 mei2you3 qian2".... until the beginner overgeneralizes and   assumes that "you3" is like "have" and starts drawing the wrong conclusions   elsewhere. At that point, I think it is better to warn him, as you did   me.

Finally, I do especially appreciate that you should have felt stimulated   to think hard about things you usually do not worry about, and all for my   benefit. I would like to think that others may also find this thread   interesting, because otherwise I should start feeling rather   embarrassed.

S.


----------



## Skatinginbc

Sibutlasi said:


> That second kind of “be”, as in “That boy is  an  engineer/clever/afraid”, etc..... That kind of  “be”  corresponds to Chinese “shì” *only when it is ‘emphatic’*,  as in “He  ÍS an engineer” (e.g., contrary to what the previous speaker  has claimed).  Otherwise, class-membership-expressing “be” is usually  not needed in  Chinese: you say “ta1 gao1”, “ta1 hen3 qiong1”, etc.


It is not true that it is used "only when it is emphatic".   Shi4 is mandatory in partitive clauses (e.g., ta1 shi4 xue2 sheng1 He is  _a student_), where Shi4 is usually unmarked (not emphasized). 

*My final comment *on 不是bu2shi4 vs. 没有 mei2you3:
In the minds of native Chinese speakers, there are clear notional distinctions between 不是bu2shi4 and 没有 mei2you3.  Such distinctions already existed in Classical Chinese, where 不是bu2shi4 is expressed as 非 fei1 ("it is not, to be not") and 没有 mei2you3 as 無 wu2 ("there is no, have no").  Since they convey different notions, they can be used to negate each other, free from restrictions on double negatives.  For instance, 非無 fei1wu2 (= 不無 bu4wu2 = 不是没有 bu2shi4mei2you3 "it is not that there is no"), 無非 wu2fei1 (= 不外是 bu2wai4shi4 "nothing except, it is only"), and 没有不是 mei2you3bu2shi4 (= 沒有錯 mei2you3zuo4cuo4 "there is no fault").  

不是bu2shi4 is a “simple” copula, nothing to do with the English existential "to be" that appears in a _marked _context. 不是 is NOT existential, PERIOD!  That’s how native speakers see it, and that’s why there is a distinction between 不是 and 没有.  By “simple copula”, I mean it is a linking verb that may take the following as its predicate: 
1. Identifying clause (e.g., He is not _the boss_): 不是我说你 "It is not that I am complaining", in which the implied or ellipted subject can be roughly translated with "it" (NOT a dummy “it”) referring to the discourse that is about to come.  So we have: What I’m about to say = My complaint.  Here 是 is an equational copula.  
2. Partitive clause (e.g., He is not _my relative_, one of my relatives.  He is not _a student_). 
3. Adjectival clause: (e.g., He is not _very rich_):  A special case of this category concerns the following examples: 不是所有中国人都想学英 文 "It is not (true/correct) that all Chinese want to learn English" = "Not all Chinese want to learn English".  不是小的吃了酒，放肆胡說 “It is not (true) that I had some drinks and is thus talking nonsense.”  不是冤家不聚头  “It is not (true) that enemies won’t run into each other” (= “Enemies may run into each other by accident”).  This special type of constructions, when translated into English, involves a dummy subject “it” as well as an ellipted adjective “true” or “correct”.  Please bear in mind that it is “true” or “correct”, NOT “existent” nor “happening”, in native speakers’ minds.  是 has an embedded meaning of “true, correct”, which is reflected in such phrases as 是非 “truth and false” and 我的不是 “my mistake, fault, incorrectness”.    
4. Prepositional clause: Compare the following: 我在屋内 “I’m inside the house”. 我不是在屋内 “It is not inside the house that I am right now” (= I'm somewhere else other than the house).  不是我在屋内 “It is not me who is inside the house” or “It is not true that I’m inside the house".  不是 is NOT the negation of existence. 

   We may thus loosely label 是 as an equational copula.  In contrast, 有 is an existential copula similar to English _there_-constructions that accept a variety of verbs (e.g., be, seem, come, develop, exist, emerge, arise, burst, etc.) expressing existence, occurrence, movement, arrival, departure, position, permanence, and so forth.  Some call them "existential constructions", while others separate them into groups.  What's interesting about them as a whole is that they share the same structure: There + Verb + Notional Subject, parallel to the Chinese existential construction: Noun1 + Verb + Notional Subject.  Noun1 is a unique entity: It is neither a locative adverbial, nor a subject of the verb.  We may call it a Topic, a Locative, or even a Subject.  It doesn’t really matter.  All that matters is its uniqueness, difficult to put a label on with a word. 

The concept of Noun1 + Verb + Notional Subject can help us understand why 没 "mei2" is often, though not necessarily, associated with completion of an action or the past tense.  For instance, the underlying concept of 没睡 is that falling into sleep or going to bed does not exist (or happen) at or during an implied time/time frame.  The implied time, if not specified in the discourse, is “up to now, by the time of speaking”.  没睡 therefore  usually means "By the time of speaking, going to bed or falling into  sleep has not happened yet."  The emphasis on the existence of an action  by the time of speaking does not go naturally well with the present tense  "don't sleep" or the future tense "won't sleep", which seem to place  focus more on “volition” or “expectation”.


----------



## Sibutlasi

Skatinginbc said:


> It is not true that it is used "only when it is emphatic".[...]



Well, thank you for your native speaker's intuitions. PERIOD.


----------

