# 先到的爷爷家



## yuechu

[Moderator's Note: Split from this thread. Please also be reminded that similar topics have been discussed before:
- 是...的
- 是張医生給我看的病
- 今天(是)很晚才吃的午饭
- 你们俩都是在国外读的管理]
"何守一、郑玉英先到*的*爷爷家，跟爷爷住一起的三叔上来就抱怨: ..."
[北京青年, p. 34]

Does this 的 in the first part of the sentence have the same function as the one above? (to signal a marked structure?) Does it emphasize "先"?
Is it any different than "何守一，郑玉英先到爷爷家了"?

Thanks to everyone for your replies!


----------



## SuperXW

To me, this sentence omitted 是. The full expression should be 先到的是爷爷家, therefor, it emphasizes 爷爷家.
Although I'm not sure why 是 can be omitted...


----------



## yuechu

Oh ok! Thanks, SuperXW!


----------



## kcip

There may be other possibilities. My first impression was that the emphasis is '何守一、郑玉英'(it were they who went to grandpa's home earlier than anyone else)... Yet SuperXW's analysis looks reasonable too. Therefore, it may depend on the context to determine the emphasis.


----------



## brofeelgood

baosheng said:


> "何守一、郑玉英先到*的*爷爷家，跟爷爷住一起的三叔上来就抱怨: ..."
> [北京青年, p. 34]



Ok, I went to read up the bit that came before. The characters were meeting up at 爷爷's place, and 何守一、郑玉英 were the first to arrive, as in 何守一、郑玉英(是)第一个抵达爷爷家的.


----------



## Skatinginbc

VP: 到爷爷家 "go to grandpa's house".
Insert 的 into the VP: 到*的*爷爷家, which signals a marked structure that emphasizes a preceding element (either an adverbial or the agent) ==> The emphasized element is NOT within the VP (e.g., 爷爷家).
By "adverbial", I meant a noun phrase (e.g., 昨天) that functions as an adverb or an adverbial phrase (e.g., 在食堂) that includes a noun (食堂).  That is to say, the emphasized element of the marked structure must be a noun (e.g., agent) or contain a noun (e.g., 食堂 in 在食堂).
(是)何守一、郑玉英先到*的*爷爷家 (是何守一和郑玉英最先到達爷爷家的) ==> the only element eligible for emphasis in that sentence is the agent (i.e., 何守一、郑玉英). 先 is not a noun; 到爷爷家 is the VP, not eligible.

電視劇《紅高粱》第3集裡有這麼一句話: "是他們先害*的*我" (= 是他們先害我*的*), which is structurally parallel to 是何守一、郑玉英先到*的*爷爷家 (= 是何守一、郑玉英先到爷爷家*的*).


----------



## Skatinginbc

人是我先打的 ≠ 我先打的是人 (然後打的是官司) 
婚是我先結的 ≠ 我先結的是婚 (然後結的是仇)
喜是我先報的 ≠ 我先報的是喜 (然後報的是憂)
爺爺家是我先到的 ≠ 我先到的是爺爺家 (然後到的是婆婆家)

(是)我從月盛齋買的肉 = 肉是我從月盛齋買的 
(是)他昨天買的票 = 票是他昨天買的
(是)我先到的爺爺家 = 爺爺家是我先到的 ≠ 我先到的是爺爺家
(是)何守一、郑玉英先到的爷爷家 = 爷爷家是何守一、郑玉英先到的 ≠ 何守一、郑玉英先到的是爷爷家


----------



## fyl

To me the sentence is ambiguous. It can emphasize either 何守一、郑玉英(not other people) or 爷爷家(not 婆婆家). My first understanding is the same as SuperXW's (it is grandfather's house that they first came to) but I'm not sure with the grammar analysis (maybe 的 is a particle like 了). The other way is also natural.


----------



## Skatinginbc

fyl said:


> maybe 的 is a particle like 了


Actually that can explain a lot of things:
(是)我從月盛齋買的肉 = (是)我從月盛齋買了肉
(是)他昨天買的票 = (是)他昨天買了票
(是)我先到的爺爺家 = (是)我先到了爺爺家
(是)何守一、郑玉英先到的爷爷家 = (是)何守一、郑玉英先到了爷爷家

But do you think the 肉 in (是)我從月盛齋買的肉 is definite (the meat) whereas the one in (是)我從月盛齋買了肉 is indefinite (any meat)?  And the 票 in (是)他昨天買的票 is definite (the ticket) whereas the one in (是)他昨天買了票 is indefinite (any ticket)?  If so, then 的 ≠ 了.


----------



## LilyFlora

As a native speaker, I have to disagree with the suggestion that "的" = "了“， simply because "了” does not emphasize a part of the sentence like "（是）... 的" does, but rather convey a meaning of completion a little like the auxiliary "have" in English. (i.e.: 我昨天买了票（了）= I have bought a ticket/tickets yesterday)

And as a rule of thumb, "的” always emphasize the part of the sentence immediately before it, excluding the verb.
          e.g.: 是*我*买的票 emphasizes "我”; (=it is _me_ who bought the tickets)
                  他们*先*到的爷爷家 emphasizes "先” (for me at least)
                   - in this case I would say omitting the “是” actually make it more a emphasize of "先“ than                                                 that of "他们”，which would be the most probable meaning with "是“


----------



## fyl

Skatinginbc said:


> But do you think the 肉 in (是)我從月盛齋買的肉 is definite (the meat) whereas the one in (是)我從月盛齋買了肉 is indefinite (any meat)?  And the 票 in (是)他昨天買的票 is definite (the ticket) whereas the one in (是)他昨天買了票 is indefinite (any ticket)?  If so, then 的 ≠ 了.


After thinking a bit more, I think 我從月盛齋買的肉 can be interpreted in several different ways:

1.1 是我(而不是其他人)從月盛齋買的肉
1.2 我是從月盛齋(而不是别处)買的肉
In these two cases, 肉 is definite. "It was me who bought the meat", "It was 月盛齋 where I bought the meat".

2. 我從月盛齋買的(东西)是肉(而不是蔬菜)
In this case, 肉 is indefinite. It means "what I bought is meat". I guess this usage may be regional according to your analyses, but it's perfectly natural to me, e.g.
我们先到的爷爷家，后到的奶奶家
我买的肉，不是菜
我养的狗，不是猫
I completely agree with SuperXW's interpretation on the meaning (inserting a 是 after 的). What I don't know is how to analyze the grammar. SuperXW's suggestion (consider "...的" as a noun phrase, and 是 is omitted) is possible. Considering 的 as a particle is just another possibility I could think of, this may not be correct and I didn't say 的 and 了 mean the same.


----------



## Skatinginbc

fyl said:


> Considering 的 as a particle is just another possibility I could think of


We can test this hypothesis with negation: 
我先买了肉 ==> 我沒先买了肉 (e.g., 如果我沒先买了肉, 就不會...), 我不先买了肉 (e.g., 为什么我不先买了肉...).
我先买的(是)肉 ==> 我先买的不是肉 (e.g.,如果我先买的不是肉, 就不會...; 为什么我先买的不是肉)

Negation of "他们*先*到的爷爷家":
If 的 is a 了-like particle, the negator (沒 or 不) should precede the verb (i.e, 如果他们沒*先*到的爷爷家, 就不會...; 为什么他们不先到的爷爷家).
If 是 is omitted after 的, the negator (不) should follow 的 (i.e., 如果他们*先*到的不是爷爷家, 就不會...; 为什么他们先到的不是爷爷家).

Does "如果他们沒*先*到的爷爷家, 就不會..." or "为什么他们不先到的爷爷家" make sense to you in your dialect?


----------



## fyl

The best way to negate the sentence is definitely 我先买的不是肉, 他们先到的不是爷爷家.
我不是先买的肉, 他们不是先到的爷爷家 are OK but they may be negations of 我是先买的肉, 他们是先到的爷爷家 (like 1.2 in my previous post).
A single 不 without 是 sounds wrong.
我没(有)先买的肉, 他们没(有)先到的爷爷家 are also wrong are barely acceptable.

It seems the structure is the same as 我买的是肉, 他们先到的是爷爷家 in every aspect, though the feelings of 我买的肉 and 我买的是肉 are quite different to me. I guess the structure may be accepted in more places if it's a question: 你买的什么？他们先到的谁家？


----------



## LilyFlora

fyl said:


> 我不是先买的肉, 他们不是先到的爷爷家 are OK but they may be negations of 我是先买的肉, 他们是先到的爷爷家 (like 1.2 in my previous post)


I definitely agree, but that's the problem of this sentence: you cannot really tell where's the emphasis just by reading the single written sentence without the context and without hearing the speaker or reader's stress. I guess that's why this kind of sentence is often with the "是", because its place can greatly clarify the meant emphasis, like in this sentence:

/他们/先到的/爷爷家

“是” can be placed in all 3 positions, each with a different emphasis:
1. 是他们先到的爷爷家 emphasizes ”他们“
2. 他们是先到的爷爷家 emphasizes "先”
3. 他们先到的是爷爷家 emphasizes "爷爷家“

[from the above we can see that "是" usually emphasize the word behind it, while "的" stresses what's before it, so they often form a pair]

But without the "是", all 3 are possible, (but personally I'd incline toward #2, and less #3, and the least probable is #1, because the "是" is least likely omitted I think in this case) and we can only speculate as long as the context is not here...


----------

