# 全是不如意的事情



## bankei yotaku

很好大家! Because this sentence, "不过近来我实在疲乏得很遇到的全是不如意的事情", from 秋 by 巴金, is rather complex, I’d like to have some opinions on my understanding of it, as Skatingbc suggested me to do in another thread. This is how I read it:

*for.link.+ temp.ph. + subj. + adj. + adj.v.com. + inten. + r.v.com. + NOM + adv. + cop. + adj.v.com. + NOM + dir.obj.
  不过           近来             我       实在          疲乏             得很          遇到           的         全        是           不如意           的          事情。*

To yield this interpretation: “However lately I am very tired indeed that I came across an affair that is entirely unsatisfactory”. Where I read “遇到的” and “全是不如意的” as relative clauses, nominalized by 的, the first referring to “我”, it was “me” that “came across”, and the other to “事情”, it was that “affair I came across” to be “entirely unsatisfactory”.


----------



## Skatinginbc

不过, 近来我实在疲乏得很, 遇到的全是不如意的事情.

*近来我*(实在疲乏得很, 遇到的全是不如意的事情) = *近来我*实在疲乏得很 + an implied coordinating conjunction (e.g., "and", "for", "yet", "so", etc.) + *近来我*遇到的全是不如意的事情
literal translation: *I have actually been so exhausted lately, **for* (a coordinating conjunction that joins clauses of equal rank) *what I have encountered these days are all frustrating matters*.


----------



## bankei yotaku

Skatinginbc said:


> *近来我*(实在疲乏得很, 遇到的全是不如意的事情) = *近来我*实在疲乏得很 + an implied coordinating conjunction (e.g., "and", "for", "yet", "so", etc.) + *近来我*遇到的全是不如意的事情



Many thanks for your reply, I see what you point out. 

I'd like to know as yet, what is exactly the function of 的 in both of its occurrences. The second one indeed seems to me being used as nominalization particle, as restriction of the reference of the head noun 事情. The first one I thought it could be understood the same way, but by your interpretation I now do see, that my understanding was not precise, even though I still wonder whether it is again the nominalization particle, still taking into consideration your remark about the equal ranks of the two clauses.

*However I've been actually so exhausted lately, as (that which) (I) came across are all matters (that are) frustrating.
*
where the 近来 you put in your rephrasing in the second clause is understood together with the missing subject, 我, and of course one would read more fluently "frustrating matters" rather than "matter (that are) frustrating". It is "lately", "these days" as you put it, that "I came across" these "frustrating matters". I also wonder whether this could be also read like this, with 全 intended as a whole, in some sort of nominal meaning:
*
However I've been actually so exhausted lately, as all (that) (I) came across are matters (that are) frustrating.*


----------



## Skatinginbc

Skatinginbc said:


> I have actually been so exhausted lately, for what I have encountered these days are all frustrating matters.





bankei yotaku said:


> I've been actually so exhausted lately, as (that which) (I) came across are all matters (that are) frustrating.


Again, I am fully aware of the rarity of "_for_" as a conjunction in today's English, but I chose it for a reason.  It is a *coordinating conjunction* placing *equal emphasis* on the linked clauses, and it introduces a piece of *new information* as if as an afterthought to loosely explain the cause.  It is sort of (only sort of) similar to "_and_" as in "_I was sick and didn't go to school_." ("_I was sick_" is the reason that I "_didn't go to school_."  The causal relationship is implied but not spelled out.).  "_As_", "_since_", and "_because_" are *subordinating conjunctions* that would create *unequal emphasis* between ideas.  While "_because_" draws attention to the reason, "_as_" and "_since_" put focus on the result and are often used when the reason is already well known (e.g., *old information* or a readily accepted fact).


bankei yotaku said:


> However I've been actually so exhausted lately, as all (that) (I) came across are matters (that are) frustrating.


Well, in that case, you placed an emphasis on "_all_"--_Everything that has come to pass did not turn out the way he liked_.  But the "_all_" in the original text is sort of a hyperbole, an exaggerated statement not meant to be taken literally.  "_They are all fine_." ==> The emphasis is on "_fine_", not "_all_".  "_They are all frustrating matters_." ==> The emphasis is on "_frustrating matters_".


bankei yotaku said:


> what is exactly the function of 的 in both of its occurrences.


近来我遇到的(事)...(The things) that I have encountered these days = What I have encountered these days
我喜歡的(事)...(The things) that I like = What I like...
我想說的(事)...(The things) that I want to say = What I want to say...

不如意的事 matters that are frustrating (= frustrating matters)
紅色的花 flowers that are red (= red flowers)
高尚的性格 character that is noble (= noble character)
的 ==> an adjectival marker


bankei yotaku said:


> nominalization particle


I would call it an adjectival marker.  It is used to signal an adjectival.
我喜歡的(事)...(The things) that I like ==> "That I like" is a relative clause, which is an adjectival modifying the implied noun "the things" (事, 東西).
紅色的花 flowers that are red (or "red flowers") ==> "That are red" (a relative clause) or simply "red" (an adjective) is also adjectival.
我的(東西)...my (stuff) ==> 我 "I" (noun) + 的 (adjectival marker) = 我的 "my" (an adjective).


----------



## bankei yotaku

Skatinginbc said:


> I would call it an adjectival marker. It is used to signal an adjectival.



I call 的 a nominalizing particle out of the terminology used by Charles N. Li and Sandra A. Thompson in their excellent, in my opinion, "Mandarin Chinese - A Functional Reference Grammar". Very clear book, covering all the topics, main and side, from basic word structure to serial verb construction and sentence linking, and they have a whole chapter titled just "Nominalization". They use such gloss - NOM - because in their opinion "every language has grammatical processes by which a verb, a verb phrase, a sentence, or a portion of a sentence including the verb can function as a noun phrase. These grammatical processes are called _nominalization_. Different languages, of course, may employ different strategies for nominalization. In Mandarin, nominalization involves placing the particle _de_ after a verb, a verb phrase, a sentence, or a portion of a sentence including the verb" (p. 575). As they then add "a nominalization can also serve to modify a following noun; in such a construction the noun being modified is called the _head noun_. There are two types of constructions involving a nominalization modifying a head noun ... one can be called a relative clause ... a _relative clause _in any language is a clause that restricts the reference of the head noun" (p. 579), whereas they had specified in advance that "some adjectives can appear either in a relative clause (that is, with the nominalizer _de_), or as a simple attributive adjective (that is, without the _de_)" (p. 118). They also use exactly your example, to illustrate this distinction: "紅的花 = red NOM flower = a flower that is red ... 紅花 = red flower = a red flower".



Skatinginbc said:


> 近来我遇到的(事)...(The things) that I have encountered these days = What I have encountered these days
> 我喜歡的(事)...(The things) that I like = What I like...
> 我想說的(事)...(The things) that I want to say = What I want to say...
> 
> 不如意的事 matters that are frustrating (= frustrating matters)
> 紅色的花 flowers that are red (= red flowers)
> 高尚的性格 character that is noble (= noble character)
> 的 ==> an adjectival marker



You here seem to me agreeing to the fact that 的 functions in such occurrences as the marker of the relative clause; the point here is, to Li and Thompson, that the clause marked by 的 functions as a noun phrase, so they called it nominalized, because it is not restricted to adjectives; one example they make is "种水果的农人 = grow fruit NOM farmer = (the) farmer(s) who grow fruit" or "他们种的水果 = they grow NOM fruit = the fruit that they grow". Anyway it is not much more than a terminological issue, I'd say, since your reply confirms me that it is indeed such construction the author of the book used.



Skatinginbc said:


> the "_all_" in the original text is sort of a hyperbole, an exaggerated statement not meant to be taken literally.



But 全 can nevertheless be used in that way, as a pronoun, rather than as an adjective, does it? And in that case, would it be placed in that same place in the sentence, and the focus of emphasis in the stress given to the word in speaking, or should it be placed elsewhere in another construction?



Skatinginbc said:


> I am fully aware of the rarity of "_for_" as a conjunction in today's English



I perfectly understand what you say about the ranks of clauses, as yet according the Oxford Advanced Learner's English Dictionary when "for" is used as a conjunction it equates to "because". I don't think that in English the introduction of new information is specially marked by any term, as it happens in Chinese. There are many construction that can fit the issue of presenting some new element in discourse. But this is speaking about English, isn't it?  Anyway, aren't the two clauses consequentially linked, that is the second one is subordinated to the first as determining the cause of the condition in which the narrator finds himself? If the two clauses are of equal rank, that is, if they do not follow each other as condition and consequence, and they are rather two clauses loosely linked, without particular connection but as something happening together around the same time, then I would make it like this:

*However I've been actually so exhausted lately, and moreover (that which) (I) came across are all matters (that are) frustrating.*


----------



## Skatinginbc

穿女孩的衣服 ==> 女孩 is already a noun.  If 的 is a nominalizing particle, why do we need to "nominalize" a noun?
做得挺粗糙的 ==> 挺 is an adverb.  If 的 is a nominalizing particle to nominalize the adjective 粗糙, then the "noun phrase" 粗糙的 (actually an adjectival) is modified by an adverb.  A noun phrase is usually modified by an adjective, not an adverb.

The first 的 in 遇到的全是不如意的事 can be arguably treated as a nominalizing particle, but the second one behaves more like an adjectival marker in my opinion.  There is really no difference in meaning between 遇到的全是不如意的事 and 遇到的全是不如意事.  的 is there simply to signal an adjective.


bankei yotaku said:


> But 全 can nevertheless be used in that way, as a pronoun, rather than as an adjective, does it?


No, not in that way.


bankei yotaku said:


> aren't the two clauses consequentially linked


Yes.


bankei yotaku said:


> the second one is subordinated to the first as determining the cause of the condition in which the narrator finds himself?


No, not subordinated.


bankei yotaku said:


> However I've been actually so exhausted lately, and moreover (that which) (I) came across are all matters (that are) frustrating.


That's not what the Chinese sentence means.


bankei yotaku said:


> when "for" is used as a conjunction it equates to "because".


Check this out: for vs. because (UsingEnglish.com): "The use of 'because' introduces the subordinate clause that _*gives the reason*_...In contrast, 'for' is used as a coordinating conjunction to stress that *both* pieces of information are of equal importance."

Also, English Language Learners Stack Exchange: "The word "for" asserts a causal relationship less strenuously than "because"."

Michael Swan: "_Because_ puts more emphasis on the reason, and most often introduces new information. When the reason is the most important part of the sentence, the because-clause usually comes at the end. It can also stand alone.  _For_ introduces new information, but suggests that the reason is given as an afterthought."

If you understand the function of "for" as a coordinating conjunction, then you should be able to grasp my point.


----------



## bankei yotaku

Skatinginbc said:


> If you understand the function of "for" as a coordinating conjunction, then you should be able to grasp my point.



I understand it to be sure. The distinction is subtle indeed, and I guess that's the reason the "for" as subordinating conjunction has later asserted itself in common speech. I would then like to guess my last thrift for this sentence, and please notice that I'm in the process of learning the language and I want to dwell right into it, trying and grasp the language I learn very much from the exact elements it uses. I try to make my mind work like other people's mind which is a challenge, and that is because I try to get the point with almost no addition in translation, if it is possible, and anyway, trying to keep the most that I can to the very structure of the original wordings. Please notice I'm self-teaching the Chinese language. After all, I'm not trying to produce a translation as if it was my job and had to find a form that is literary appreciable, and at the same time, coherent and respectful of the original work.

*However I am actually so exhausted lately, that I came across matters that all are frustrating.*

I put it like this, because after all, it is a perfectly acceptable English sentence, using the proper conjunction "that", where the sentence must be read in the conjunctive mood of course, and it is a relative clause, which is coordinated and not subordinated, from the syntactical point of view, because "I came across matters that all are frustrating" is an independent clause, and also from the semantic point of view, since it implies the causal relation without explicitly express it - that is, it does not give the reason, as it is said there. Considering the uses of my mother tongue - Italian - which would maybe put a "di" = "of" in place of "che" = "that", I would maybe use also the verbal expression "of having come across", to the same comprehension and effect.



Skatinginbc said:


> That's not what the Chinese sentence means.



Exactly, since the sentence, as you remark, is a conjunction - regardless now of coordination or subordination - of two clauses, the one in a causal relation to the other, so that, "and moreover" would not express such relation, but simply the juxtaposition of two sentences unrelated but for the fact that they refer to two events happening at the same time, even though they indeed were happening at the same time. As to say, the situation was just that, I was so exhausted and in the meantime I came across frustrating matters.



Skatinginbc said:


> 穿女孩的衣服 ==> 女孩 is already a noun. If 的 is a nominalizing particle, why do we need to "nominalize" a noun?



I think the treatment Professors Li and Thompson give of the nominalization issue is very clear and to the point. It seems to me they know their stuff pretty well. Moreover having began with one way of calling elements of 汉语, which is a serious issue for someone who only knows neo-latin and anglo-saxon languages (plus a bit of ancient Greek), I must stick to what I've learned up to now, because I only went through the book one and a half times, and there's still a lot I can apprehend from such learned understanding of 中文 and 汉语. Most of all, such a clear presentation and structure of explanation. Of course I cannot enter into the particular issues you refer to with the sentences you wrote in your reply, since is way beyond my present understanding of 汉语 to tackle them. I guess the authors of the book would be indeed able to. Many thanks again for the time you gave to the issue I presented.


----------



## retrogradedwithwind

你们写得好长好长……

1，
穿女孩的衣服=穿女孩衣服
种水果的农人≠种水果农人（actually 种水果农人 doesn't make sense.）
these are different kinds of sentences. I cannot discuss the differences in English but I think both of you can understand. The key is whether 的 can be omitted.

2，
近来我(实在疲乏得很, 遇到的全是不如意的事情) = 近来我实在疲乏得很 +  近来我遇到的全是不如意的事情
it's just like this 
I am tired. I played football for four hours.
You can understand these two independent sentence as reason and result, but they have little relation in grammar.


----------



## Skatinginbc

近来我实在疲乏得很, 遇到的全是不如意的事情。(one complete sentence, a single thought) vs. 近来我实在疲乏得很。近来我遇到的全是不如意的事情。 (two complete sentences, two separate thoughts).

我累了。我踢了四個小時的足球。I am tired. I played football for four hours.
我累了, 踢了四個小時的足球。I am tired, for I've played football for four hours.
我累了, 昨晚沒睡好。I am tired, for I didn't sleep well last night.
我得走了, 丈夫還在外面等著 (explanation or excuse)。I have to go, for my husband is still waiting outside.
Anyway, the reason (or "explanation", or "excuse") is given like an afterthought.

Someone wrote in another forum (English-test.net): "As the meaning of _for_ in that sense suggests more of an _explanation_ rather than a_ reason_, it wouldn't start a sentence since you can't explain what happens before you know what has happened."

The use of "for" as a coordinating conjunction is indeed very old-fashioned.  That's why I explicitly specified "_literal_ translation" in Post #2, meaning that it is given for the sake of syntactic explanation.  Treating the sentence (近来我实在疲乏得很, 遇到的全是不如意的事情) as two independent sentences (近来我实在疲乏得很.  近来我遇到的全是不如意的事情), as Retro suggested, may actually yield a more idiomatic modern English translation.


----------



## bankei yotaku

retrogradedwithwind said:


> 你们写得好长好长……



ahaha  as for my part I have a degree in Philosophy, and had a crush with linguistics (Chomsky school) for some five years before that...


----------



## bankei yotaku

The fact is I'm rather interested in the _underlying_ structure of the language first, whatever it is, since that is what can make clear to my mind how to go thorough the reading and learning. I mean: in Post #1 I placed above the characters, my understanding of such structure. Now, I want to know exactly what is the correct underlying structure of that sentence: because in principle, I could replace all the characters, as yet, obtain a new sentence altogether different, but with that same structure: if I understand this latter, I will understand all possible sentences that might happen under it. 

One must consider that I speak Italian as mother tongue, which is an incredibly aggregating language, rather than isolating as Mandarin is. We can have ludicrously polysyllabic words, as "in-trat-te-ni-men-to" = "en-ter-tain-ing". That is, I am used to be directed rather much by words _and _annexes, suffixes, prefixes, preposition, articulated prepositions, tense, mood, voice of the verb, etc. etc. We have also so many pronouns, and zero subject, but when this latter is used the verb has, and cannot but have, always, the precise inflection indicating who is doing what and when (sometimes also where). All in one single word. This, one must argue it in Chinese, or better, it often must be understood from context. 

For example, take the notion of "topic": in Italian we do not even have a word who translates "topic" in the sense Chinese grammarians use it. "Topic" is translated in Italian by "argomento" = "subject-matter", that is issue about which a conversation or a text is. As yet, we very often also use the topic-comment structure so typical of Mandarin: "il caffè, l'ho bevuto tutto" = "the coffee, I've drank it all" = "咖啡，我都喝完了", and it is a perfectly acceptable sentence in answer to a question, or as personal recollection to oneself. 

But in Italian, "il caffé" it's only the direct object of the verb "ho bevuto", present perfect complex tense, first person singular, to which it refers for the pronominal article "l(o)", masculine, singular. No Italian grammarians would ever define it as "argomento", because "argomento" is not a grammatical notion, only a rhetorical one. What is understood in Italian here is of course, that I've drank all the coffee that was prepared, or that was in the house - certainly not all coffee in the world - something we can express as yet, if we want to specify the former meaning placing a relative clause after "caffè": "il caffè che c'era, l'ho bevuto tutto". We can change the verb to yield the latter, "il caffè che c'era, l'ho fatto tutto", sentences whose linguistic analytic treatment goes a long way, and which I will spare you... but of course, I could change all single referential words, and still obtain a grammatical sentence: "la torta che ho comprato, l'ha mangiata tutta" = "the cake I bought, he ate it all". Certainly, having learned Italian as mother tongue in a non conflicting linguistic environment I am aware of this intuitively. Most of the determinations my mother tongue has, are not present in Chinese, so it is rather a challenge, as one finds indeed as afloat, not exactly realizing which direction is to take.


----------



## bankei yotaku

retrogradedwithwind said:


> 穿女孩的衣服=穿女孩衣服
> 种水果的农人≠种水果农人（actually 种水果农人 doesn't make sense.）
> these are different kinds of sentences. I cannot discuss the differences in English but I think both of you can understand. The key is whether 的 can be omitted.



Indeed I guess that is the key. But really I can't tell precisely why can it. Is 女孩的衣服 by itself "(the) clothes of (the) girl(s)"? While can 女孩衣服 be understood as "girls' clothes" as some sort of nominal non idiomatic compound? But not as generic because it is not in the position of topic, thus as nonreferential. Li-Thompson say that they "refer to a nominalization as a relative clause if its head noun refers to some participant in the event it describes". Here 穿女孩的衣服 responds to this criteria: the missing participant is 衣服, that is, things that one wears. Can thus the 的 be omitted because 衣服 are those things that necessarily are worn by people, and only people wear clothes among which 女孩 are included? That is, 衣服 is "closely knit to the noun" 女孩? In this case also, is 女孩 after the verb in the relative clause because it is not definite, nor generic, that it is not speaking of clothes that _all _girls wear, neither of a particular girl? I am fully aware of the strict connection between semantics and syntactic concerns in Mandarin, and it is an issue not easy to handle. Of course, then, 水果的农人 by itself does not make any sense, for it would be "?? (the) farmer(s) of (the) fruit(s)": 水果 are not entities that can possess anything. Moreover, although 农人 are people who grow food, they do not exclusively grow 水果, nor 水果 has any particular relation with 农人, it would maybe rather have it with 果树. So, 种水果的农人 is unambiguously a noun phrase modified by a relative clause, while 穿女孩的衣服 has at least two underlying structures.



retrogradedwithwind said:


> 近来我(实在疲乏得很, 遇到的全是不如意的事情) = 近来我实在疲乏得很 + 近来我遇到的全是不如意的事情
> it's just like this
> I am tired. I played football for four hours.
> You can understand these two independent sentence as reason and result, but they have little relation in grammar.





Skatinginbc said:


> Treating the sentence (近来我实在疲乏得很, 遇到的全是不如意的事情) as two independent sentences (近来我实在疲乏得很. 近来我遇到的全是不如意的事情), as Retro suggested, may actually yield a more idiomatic modern English translation.



But then, there is no real need for adding any particle as "for", "as", or whatever. In English I indeed can understand the semantic connection between the two clauses, missing any conjunction, like "I am tired, I played football for four hours", which to me expresses one single thought, my tiredness caused by the fact that I've played football for so long. The short pause of the semi-colon grants the hint to their causal relation, without need for explicitly uttering it. It is certainly a colloquial use of the coordination, but the original sentence indeed is a letter that a character of the novel is writing to some relative. If I wanted to have the second clause clearly subordinated then, that _gives the reason_, should one add something like 因为?
非常感谢大家!


----------



## retrogradedwithwind

@bankei yotaku 
What a great topic you want to explore...
I can only talk a little about that sentence.

1,
近来我实在疲乏得很, 遇到的全是不如意的事情.
A comma could be inserted into the sentence though it is not written down by the writer.

You see, this is a very natural sentence. When the writer wrote it down, what did he think? In my opinion, he thought nothing, just writing  it as he wrote many other sentences. In his head at that time, 因为、而且、由于( because for as moreover  ) etc. didn't appear. And since this is a correct/legal sentence according to Chinese grammar, he wouldn't rethink it after finishing writing it.

A Chinese sentence is just like this. It's totally OK when you write such Chinese sentences. just as you write 
I am tired. I played football for long.

And of course you can write 
I am tired because I played football for long.

近来我实在疲乏得很, 因为我遇到的全是不如意的事情.
It's OK to write this one too but It's not what the writer wanted to write.


----------



## retrogradedwithwind

2,
穿女孩的衣服
种水果的农人

Sometimes we need a sentence to describe a noun, so we created 定语从句attributive clause. And to make it clear to readers we leave a marker there. 的 is the marker for attributive clause in Chinese.

But 的 is also an adjectival marker, as in 我的书.

As a result, Distinguishing these two kinds of 的 is crucial for understanding a sentence.

骂他老师的学生
two way to understand this sentence.
①骂(他老师的/学生)
scold the student, the student is his teacher's student 
②（骂/他老师的）学生
the student who scolded his teacher


----------



## Skatinginbc

的: 用在词后表明*形容词性 *(an adjectival marker, an adjectival suffix, an adjectivizing particle): 女警察 (女警) women police officers vs. 女的警察 female police officers.
(1) "形容词性"包括表示所属关系的词 (possessive), e.g., 女孩衣服 (女衣) girls clothing = 女孩的衣服 girls' clothing.  In this case, 女孩衣服 (N + N) is like "spring flowers" (N + N) 春花, in which the first noun "spring" serves as an adjective.  To signal its adjectival function, you may add an adjectival marker (e.g., 的, 之) between the two nouns: 春天的花.
(2) "形容词性"包括*关系从句* (relative clause), e.g., 种水果的农人 fruit-growing farmers, farmers that grow fruits. 种水果农人 (vs. 种水果的农人) is structurally ambiguous (cf. 看海豹 vs. 看海之豹).  To avoid structural ambiguity, the 的 (or the archaic 之) cannot be omitted in this case.
关系从句包括:
(A) 一般关系子句 (bound relative clause, with an explicit head noun).  The relative clause serves as an adjectival (i.e.,形容词性关系从句 adjectival relative clause). e.g., 种水果的 is an adjectival in 种水果的农人, in which 农人 is the head noun.
(B) 自由关系子句 (free relative clause, without an explicit head noun): The relative clause has "zero" as its head noun (i.e., an implicit head noun). The relative clause itself takes the place of a noun, e.g., 吃的 = 吃的(東西), 遇到的 = 遇到的(事物).  The relative clause may be seen as an adjectival modifying an implicit head noun (e.g., 東西, 事物, 人, etc.) or, alternatively, treated as a noun (名词性关系子句, nominal relative clause).


bankei yotaku said:


> However I am actually so exhausted lately, that I came across matters that all are frustrating.


To me, your sentence seems to be saying: "Because I am so exhausted lately, even small matters that I come across seem frustrating."--And that's certainly not what the Chinese sentence says.


retrogradedwithwind said:


> When the writer wrote it down, what did he think? In my opinion, he thought nothing, just writing it as he wrote many other sentences. In his head at that time, 因为、而且、由于( because for as moreover  ) etc. didn't appear. And since this is a _correct/legal sentence_ according to Chinese grammar, he wouldn't rethink it after finishing writing it.


He surely thought of one thing: They are logically connected; otherwise, it would not be written as a single sentence.  A "_correct/legal_" Chinese sentence is not a jumble of thoughts.  There are rules governing what constitutes a "sentence".  I agree he did not think of 因为 (because), 由于 (as), and 既然 (since), because they are subordinating conjunctions that would create unequal emphasis, which is not something in his mind.  He did not think of 而且 (moreover), either, because he was not making a list or adding a parallel piece of supporting evidence.  Of course, he did not think of "_and_" (coordinator) or "_for_" (coordinator), because he didn't think in English.

Anyway,
(1) The clauses in the original Chinese sentence is logically connected.  The *causal relationship* is implied, though not explicitly spelled out.  遇到的全是不如意的事情 explains why 近来我实在疲乏得很.  
(2) 我实在疲乏得很 and 遇到的全是不如意的事情 are of *equal importance*.  The latter is not subordinated to the former.
(3) The two elements are closely linked ("*coordinated*") together, so much so that it is written as one sentence rather than two independent sentences. Chinese coordinated structures sometimes employ a "zero" coordinator (e.g., 他有時哭，有時笑 He sometimes cried and sometimes laughed ; 你做飯，我洗碗 You cook and I'll do the dishes).
The above is what I have been saying, for instance, in Post #4:


Skatinginbc said:


> a *coordinating *conjunction placing* equal emphasis* on the linked clauses...The *causal relationship* is implied but not spelled out.


----------



## bankei yotaku

Skatinginbc said:


> (3) The two elements are closely linked ("*coordinated*") together, so much so that it is written as one sentence rather than two independent sentences. Chinese coordinated structures sometimes employ a "zero" coordinator (e.g., 他有時哭，有時笑 He sometimes cried and sometimes laughed ; 你做飯，我洗碗 You cook and I'll do the dishes).





retrogradedwithwind said:


> A Chinese sentence is just like this. It's totally OK when you write such Chinese sentences. just as you write
> I am tired. I played football for long.



What I was hypothesizing as very loose translation, in colloquial style, was suggesting exactly this. One could well say in English the two sentences Skatinginbc makes as example without the conjunction "and", only the comma, in which the relation between the two clauses is hinted in the stress, or the tone the clauses are uttered. It is obvious without stating it with an additional word that "I'm exhausted" as a result of "frustrating matters I've encountered", so in that other example, "I'm so tired, I played football for four hours" = zero coordinator which is implied by the reference of the two clauses, exactly as in the original Chinese, which is something I'm always satisfied of.



Skatinginbc said:


> (A) 一般关系子句 (bound relative clause, with an explicit head noun). The relative clause serves as an adjectival (i.e.,形容词性关系从句 adjectival relative clause). e.g., 种水果的 is an adjectival in 种水果的农人, in which 农人 is the head noun.
> (B) 自由关系子句 (free relative clause, without an explicit head noun): The relative clause has "zero" as its head noun (i.e., an implicit head noun). The relative clause itself takes the place of a noun, e.g., 吃的 = 吃的(東西), 遇到的 = 遇到的(事物). The relative clause may be seen as an adjectival modifying an implicit head noun (e.g., 東西, 事物, 人, etc.) or, alternatively, treated as a noun (名词性关系子句, nominal relative clause).



遇到的 belongs to (2-B), 全是不如意的 belongs to (2-A) and 不如意的事情 can be understood as belonging both to (1) and (2-A), is this correct?



retrogradedwithwind said:


> 骂他老师的学生
> two way to understand this sentence.
> ①骂(他老师的/学生)
> scold the student, the student is his teacher's student
> ②（骂/他老师的）学生
> the student who scolded his teacher



And which one of the two will be determined by the context in which the sentence is placed.



retrogradedwithwind said:


> 近来我实在疲乏得很, 因为我遇到的全是不如意的事情.
> It's OK to write this one too but It's not what the writer wanted to write.





Skatinginbc said:


> I agree he did not think of 因为 (because), 由于 (as), and 既然 (since), because they are subordinating conjunctions that would create unequal emphasis, which is not something in his mind.



Yes, of course, that is now rather clear. I was asking whether, in case I wanted to subordinate clearly one clause to the other in such a sentence, it would be sufficient to add 因为 for example, without other changes in the rest of the sentence. I'm a bit puzzled that you left in the first 的 in the second clause: *因为我遇到的全是不如意的事情 = because (what) I've encountered |all are frustrating matters/matters (that) all are frustrating| ?? *Could 了 be inserted there as Perfective marker? No need to tell me why, yes or no it's ok, since I know 了 is a rather tough issue.



Skatinginbc said:


> To me, your sentence seems to be saying: "Because I am so exhausted lately, even small matters that I come across seem frustrating."--And that's certainly not what the Chinese sentence says.



Ok, I understand your perplexity. The sentence can indeed be understood also in the way you do. It is an awkward translation to be sure, as yet, it was only to the purpose of transporting in English the most literal translation I could think of, since in this case I am interested in Mandarin and English is only the tool, as I use Italian when dealing with ancient Greek. I wanted to mirror the examples you made in post #4 like this:



Skatinginbc said:


> 近来我遇到的(事)...(The things) that I have encountered these days



Thus I wrote: *However I am actually so exhausted lately, that I came across matters that all are frustrating. *With this interpretation: "I actually got so exhausted lately (by the fact) that I encountered matters all (of which) are frustrating", that is, the matters that I've encountered are all frustrating, and this exhausted me. *我遇到**的 **... **that **I came across** ... 全是不如意**的** (事情) ... (matters) **that** are all frustrating*, so that of course (事情), would also be understood as the missing participant in the first relative clause.


----------



## retrogradedwithwind

bankei yotaku said:


> Could 了 be inserted there as Perfective marker? No need to tell me why, yes or no it's ok, since I know 了 is a rather tough issue.


 No.


----------



## retrogradedwithwind

About 的

One can say 美丽的花，丑陋的花
One can write a sentence like 这些花——美丽的，丑陋的——都一齐枯萎了。

If both the writer and readers know what the word after the adjective is, that word perhaps would be omitted.

遇到的全是不如意的事情
The word after 遇到的 is omitted because it appears after 不如意的. The reason why the writer omitted it is to avoid a recurrence of writing a word.

遇到的事情全是不如意的事情
this is right 
遇到的事情全是不如意的
right too 

All the three are right and the writer chose the first one. no why. He just wrote like that.

Sometimes a writer should avoid repetition to make his composition concise, and sometimes a writer should not to keep precise and complete.

As for the words like 吃的喝的玩的, since everyone knows what the word after the adjective is, the writer can just use them without explaining or mentioning the word in other places.


----------



## bankei yotaku

bankei yotaku said:


> Could 了 be inserted there as Perfective marker? No need to tell me why, yes or no it's ok, since I know 了 is a rather tough issue.





retrogradedwithwind said:


> No.



Many thanks. 遇到 here does not refer to a bounded event, thus. I will explore further. I'd like to ask one more thing about the sentence with 因为: could it be written without the first 的 (whether yes or no, if you could spare a moment for the why, it would be great )? *因为我遇到全是不如意的事情 = because I've encountered matters (that) are all frustrating.
*


retrogradedwithwind said:


> 遇到的全是不如意的事情
> The word after 遇到的 is omitted because it appears after 不如意的. The reason why the writer omitted it is to avoid a recurrence of writing a word.



Of course. One English writer, particularly verbose, could have written: "However I am actually so exhausted lately; the matters that I've encountered...they're all matters that are frustrating" with the semicolon and suspension dots.



retrogradedwithwind said:


> 遇到的事情全是不如意的事情
> this is right
> 遇到的事情全是不如意的
> right too



Thanks to both of your explanations this structure is now clear: one can put more than one adjectival/relative clause one after another - that is clauses who restrict in some way the reference of the head noun - who refers to the same head noun, and their similar structures require a bit of attention to distinguish them correctly. Li-Thompson say that the order of elements in a noun phrase is this: "associative phrase + classifier/measure phrase + relative clause + adjective + noun". Here we have, rel.cl. + adj. + noun, since 全是不如意的 is some sort of nominalized (in their terminology) adjectival phrase.



retrogradedwithwind said:


> One can say 美丽的花，丑陋的花
> One can write a sentence like 这些花——美丽的，丑陋的——都一齐枯萎了。


*
这些花——美丽的，丑陋的——都一齐枯萎了。= these flowers - beautiful (...), (these ...) - ugly (...), (they) all withered away already.

这些花——美丽的: topic - comment construction
topic  + adjective + attributive de + (understood head noun=topic), 

丑陋的——: topic - comment construction
(understood topic) + adjective + attributive de*

*都一齐枯萎了: expressing "already" with "都 ... 了" construction
(understood subject=topic) + adjective dou + adverb + intransitive verb + perfective/CRS le (can't tell which, to be sure)...*


----------



## retrogradedwithwind

bankei yotaku said:


> Many thanks. 遇到 here does not refer to a bounded event, thus. I will explore further. I'd like to ask one more thing about the sentence with 因为: could it be written without the first 的 (whether yes or no, if you could spare a moment for the why, it would be great ￼)? 因为我遇到全是不如意的事情 = because I've encountered matters (that) are all frustrating.




still about 的

An 定语从句attributive clause actually is an adjective.
And whether there is a verb is the key difference between a clause/sentence/phrase  and an adjective. A clause could not directly describe a noun unless it is transformed to be an adjective. 的 could do that.

听到 is a verb.
听到的 is a clause or an adjective.

种水果 a phrase ( verb + noun )
种水果的 an attributive cleanse or an adjective

我打他 is a sentence
我打他的 is an attributive clause or an adjective ( eg 我打他的问题 the problem that I  beat him )

So 的 coudn't be omitted when it appears after a verb or a sentence and functions as the marker of an attributive clause.


But as an adjectival marker, 的 could be omitted sometimes and could not in other times. That is another difficult question.


----------



## Skatinginbc

bankei yotaku said:


> 全是不如意的 is some sort of nominalized (in their terminology) adjectival phrase.


Some Chinese linguists (e.g., Li&,Thompson, 1981) indeed treat "的" as a "nominalization particle" (名词化助词), but it seems to be a misnomer to me.  Despite the existence of 的, 遇到的 is still an adjectival in 遇到的事情.  What nominalizes 遇到的 in 遇到的全是不如意的事情 is actually the omission of its head noun (i.e., 事情), not "的". It is not employed to nominalize 遇到, either, because 遇到 can serve as a noun by itself without a "nominalization particle" (e.g., 遇到 can serve as a gerund in 遇到是我倒楣 without a "nominalization particle"; also, 不如意的: 不如意 can serve as a noun in 不如意是人生的常態 without a "nominalization particle"; 美丽的花: 美丽 can serve as a noun in 美丽不在于外表 or 美丽不重要 without a "nominalization particle"). And I would further argue that 遇到 in 遇到的, 不如意 in 不如意的, and 美丽 in 美丽的花 are actually adjectives, not nouns, since they can be modified by adverbs (e.g., 經常 "often" in 經常遇到的, 很 "very" in 很不如意的, 非常 "extremely" in 非常美丽的花).  What 的 does in 遇到的全是不如意的事情 actually concerns disambiguation: _participle_ (adjective, as in "fruit-growing farmers") as opposed to gerund (noun); _adjectival that-clause_ (farmers that grow fruits) as opposed to nominal that-clause. If we call "的" an "adjectival marker" whose purpose is to signal or disambiguate its adjectival function, we can easily explain why 心中的美丽天空 and 心中的美丽的天空 mean the same--The extra "的" is there to unambiguously point out that 美丽 (which can be either an adjective or a noun) serves as an adjective in this case. Thus we have: unmarked 美男子 vs. marked 美的男子; unmarked 飛鳥 vs. marked 飛的鳥; unmarked 醜小鴨 vs. marked 醜的小鴨; unmarked 不如意事十常八九 vs. marked 不如意的事十常八九.  The "unmarkedness" of "adjective+noun" (e.g., 美男子, 不如意事) is rooted in Classical Chinese, in which the dominant default or the "normal" form does not come with a particle.  Markedness may bring about a "marked sense" different from the common meaning of the unmarked form.  The "marked sense" of "的" pertains to "restrictiveness"--It forms a restrictive relative clause (e.g., 醜的小鴨 "ducklings that are ugly" ==> not any relative clause, but a RESTRICTIVE relative clause).


----------



## Nicholas Sun

Really tired of looking through your analysis. But as a native speaker, I can tell you what the actual meeting of the sentence, "But I am very tired, because all what I came across recently make me depressed."


----------



## bankei yotaku

Skatinginbc said:


> What 的 does in 遇到的全是不如意的事情 actually concerns disambiguation: _participle_ (adjective, as in "fruit-growing farmers") as opposed to gerund (noun); _adjectival that-clause_ (farmers that grow fruits) as opposed to nominal that-clause.



Interesting distinction, in relation to the discourse we've been making. Not completely clear for me, anyway. I'll ponder it through.



retrogradedwithwind said:


> So 的 coudn't be omitted when it appears after a verb or a sentence and functions as the marker of an attributive clause.



Yes, of course. What I meant to clarify was whether with 因为 such clause, "我遇到", could be used as subject-verb, then followed by the relative clause-noun as object.



retrogradedwithwind said:


> But as an adjectival marker, 的 could be omitted sometimes and could not in other times. That is another difficult question.



If I'm not wrong, firstly regarding issues of idiomaticity. Once again many thanks to both of you, for your precise answers and dedicated time. I'll post soon something else, as going ahead with the translation, I've already encountered  ...many issues I need to substantially clarify.


----------



## bankei yotaku

Nicholas Sun said:


> as a native speaker, I can tell you what the actual meeting of the sentence, "But I am very tired, because all what I came across recently make me depressed."



Well, in the original sentence, there is no "because" to be sure, we've been speaking all along exactly about that. Maybe you're referring to the latest example we were making in our conversation. Anyway, if I'm not wrong, Skatinginbc and retrogradedwithwind too are Chinese native speakers.


----------



## Skatinginbc

Skatinginbc said:


> What 的 does in 遇到的全是不如意的事情 actually concerns disambiguation: _participle_ (adjective, as in "fruit-growing farmers") as opposed to gerund (noun); _adjectival that-clause_ (farmers that grow fruits) as opposed to nominal that-clause.





bankei yotaku said:


> Not completely clear for me


Let me try again:
(1) Nominal (gerund or nominal relative clause):
遇到全屬意外 "_Coming upon it _was totally unexpected."; (我)遇到全屬意外 "_That I encountered it_ was totally unexpected." ==> 遇到 takes the place of the subject, so we know it functions as a noun.
(2) Adjectival (participle or adjectival relative clause):
遇到的全屬意外 "The matters _encountered_ were all surprises." (我)遇到的全屬意外 "The matters _that I encountered_ were all surprises." ==> 遇到的, an adjectival as indicated by 的, takes the place of the subject, so we know there is an implicit head noun (事情).  

As illustrated in (1), 遇到 can function as a noun without 的.  The notion that 的 is a "nominalization particle" to nominalize something that already can serve as a noun just seems to be a misnomer to me.


----------



## retrogradedwithwind

bankei yotaku said:


> Yes, of course. What I meant to clarify was whether with 因为 such clause, "我遇到", could be used as subject-verb, then followed by the relative clause-noun as object



As skating said, 我遇到 as a gerund means the encountering between I and someone or something. The verb and object after it must be chosen in keeping with logic.


----------



## bankei yotaku

Skatinginbc said:


> 遇到 takes the place of the subject, so we know it functions as a noun.



Ok, this is the central point, thank you. Some element functions as a noun, in the sense that they take the place of the subject, which being an entity which performs an action, is by definition a nominal expression.



Skatinginbc said:


> (我)遇到全屬意外 "_That I encountered it_ was totally unexpected."



Couldn't it be, "_That I'm coming upon it_ was totally unexpected"? To keep to a gerund-form translation I mean, signifying that it is something which is happening in the present period. 



Skatinginbc said:


> The notion that 的 is a "nominalization particle" to nominalize something that already can serve as a noun just seems to be a misnomer to me.





Skatinginbc said:


> The "marked sense" of "的" pertains to "restrictiveness"--It forms a restrictive relative clause (e.g., 醜的小鴨 "ducklings that are ugly" ==> not any relative clause, but a RESTRICTIVE relative clause).



I can only guess, that Li-Thompson take any relative clause to be restrictive in that sense, that they are adjectival, that is they specify the head noun to which they refer, implicitly or not, when they went so far to state that "a _relative clause _in any language is a clause that *restricts* the reference of the head noun" (bold emphasis mine).



retrogradedwithwind said:


> As skating said, 我遇到 as a gerund means the encountering between I and someone or something. The verb and object after it must be chosen in keeping with logic.



retrograded, your analytical exposition seems very much like Socratic-Aristotelian heuristic! --> retrograded, 你的分析方法非常似乎苏格拉底和亚里士多德的启发式! I will try and apply my few skills to such issues.


----------

