# 们 (plural)



## vince

Hello everyone,

I know it's been said many times that Chinese languages do not mark plurals except on pronouns, but I have seen the suffix -men pop up sometimes after regular nouns.
e.g. "Xiaopengyou*-men* xiang-yi-xiang, shenme dongxi zui xiang xiang?" "Children, let's think, what object most resembles it?"

My question is: When talking about plural nouns, when can/must one add the -men suffix? And what is the equivalent suffix in Cantonese?

Thanks,
Vince

Also, if anyone knows how this works in Taiwanese, that would be great too!


----------



## paisleyHK

"Chinese languages do not mark plurals except on pronouns"-- I really wonder whether that is right. Maybe it is a rule written in Chinese textbooks, yet I don't believe they are always right. 

Actually there are hundres of examples that plural forms are used with regular nouns. For instance:

Haizimen dou xia dai le. 孩子們都嚇呆了。(The children are shocked.)   
  Nianqingde babamen zai  chanfang waimian jiaojide dengzhe.
  年輕的爸爸們在産房外面焦急地等著。(The yound fathers are waiting anxiously outside the delivery room.) (I am not sure whether "delivery room" is right, what I mean is where women deliver babies.)



In both these two sentences, if "men" (們) is removed, the meaning would change totally. Even within the context, "men" should not be removed.

I cannot summarise the lexical rule for that. What I can vaguely rule out is that "men" (們) could only be used with people, instead of objects. 

Of course there are indeed cases when objects are personified with "men" (們) but usally they are terribly written, even by native users. I sometimes find such usage disgusting.


----------



## ilikeenglish

Before those pronouns refering to humans, and especially when you are speaking to those people who are present, you add suffix "们".

Sometimes there seems to have no rules.
For example , we are get used to say "老师们", but not "医生们".  
And nowadays some Chinese language experts suggest that we reduce "们" as much as possible, for it is seldom seen in achient classsical literature works in Chinese.
Besides, who you are addressing, a single person or not, can always be distinct from contexts.

Sometimes we say  ”们“ to address the audiences, just with the attempt to shorten out psychological relationship.   So a teacher often uses this to address his/her students.  A leader uses this to address his suboridinates or ordinary clerks.   And so on.

I havn't thought so deeply about it before I see your post here.  When we learn language, we just have to imitate, do not treat it as a logical problem. That may be a univeral rule.  Any language has exceptions to a rule. No rule can describe everything neatly.


----------



## vince

It is not very easy to imitate since Mandarin-learners are told that plurals don't exist in the language.

But they clearly do! (sometimes)


Could someone tell me whether Cantonese has an equivalent suffix? i.e. instead of men (們), what do they add for plural?


----------



## ilikeenglish

"plurals don't exist in Chinese" is a general circumstance. But everything has an exception.
The addition of 们 is just to address something and to show a little familarity or someting like that. To reduce them is a norm in written Chinese.
Some Chinese linguists or teachers say "there are not plurals in Chinese" with the purpose of purifying the Chinese language, for they think classcial Chinese true has beauty and is concise.  They often refer to achient works to judge whether this is good Chinese or not.
In writing, this “们”is unnecessary any more, except in some pupils' writing, maybe because of the influence of some texts in school.  I recalled using 们 frequently in the earlier years at primary school.  Later we seem to drop them.  For we do not have the context to use them.  
When addressing people before a speech, it is still adopted , for example, 
女士们、先生们，(ladies and gentlemen) ；老师们、同学们 when a school master or teacher representative is giving a speech.
You not only need know whether it exists, but also when to use them.
In writing, I've pointed out earlier, almost only boys and girs in primary school often refer to 们.
The essense of Chinese is being concise. Being single or plural can be sensed from context.  No need to distinguish them in form. Besides, in speaking, you can always use addjectives to suggest the subject be single or plural.

The addition of 们 is just to address something some people.
Sorry for this mistake.

remove "something" in the previous sentence.  Use the underlined instead.


----------



## vince

ilikeenglish said:
			
		

> In writing, this “们”is unnecessary any more, except in some pupils' writing, maybe because of the influence of some texts in school.  I recalled using 们 frequently in the earlier years at primary school.  Later we seem to drop them.  For we do not have the context to use them.
> ...
> The essense of Chinese is being concise. Being single or plural can be sensed from context.  No need to distinguish them in form. Besides, in speaking, you can always use addjectives to suggest the subject be single or plural.



But paisleyHK showed examples that required the use of 们.

I'd like to know if there is a concrete rule of when to add 们 at the end of a noun to make it plural, and when I shouldn't, and when it is optional.

And also to know if there is an equivalent construction in Cantonese.


----------



## LikeBarleyBending

Actually, I have never thought about such a question. To me, the answer might be: 

When no numeral is put before the noun, then 们 should be added, e.g.:

孩子们来了吗？

When there is a numeral before the noun, then no '们' is ncessary:

－ 孩子们来了吗？(Are the kids already here?)
－ 来了3个孩子。 (Three kids are here.)

Hope it helps


----------



## eki_robin

According to "现代汉语词典” (1996)， 


> 们 -  用在代词或*指人的名词*后面，表示复数： 我~/你~/同志~
> [注意] 名词前有量词时，后面不加’们‘， 例如不说’三个孩子~‘


们 - used after pronouns or *nouns for people*, to represent plural forms 我~/你~/同志~
   [attention] when proceeded with numbers, nouns cannot be suffixed with 们, e.g. don't use '三个孩子~'

pronouns: 你/我/他/她/它
nouns for people: 孩子/同学/爸爸/叔叔/...


----------



## ryuusaki

vince said:


> And what is the equivalent suffix in Cantonese?


If you want to say "we", "you(plural)" , or they,

我们  －＞ 我地
你们  －＞ 你地
他们  －＞ 佢地

The "地" in Cantonese can be said to be equivalent in these cases.

However, it doesn't work when you want to say,

孩子们
医生们

Just anything other than the three cases mentioned.

It would sound stupid if you say 孩子地, and people won't know what you mean. If you really want to specify it is plural, the expression varies, depending the noun you are referring to and the context in which it is used.

Nonetheless, what being said only applies to spoken Cantonese. In written Cantonese, it is the same as Mandarin.


----------



## vince

Thank you, but then how do you tell the difference between  Mandarin / Written Chinese's 孩子 and  孩子们 in Cantonese? And shouldn't  孩子 be samanjai in Cantonese?



ryuusaki said:


> Nonetheless, what being said only applies to spoken Cantonese. In written Cantonese, it is the same as Mandarin.



If Written Cantonese is the same as Mandarin, then what language is this wikipedia written in:

http://zh-yue.wikipedia.org

?


----------



## ryuusaki

vince said:


> If Written Cantonese is the same as Mandarin, then what language is this wikipedia written in:
> 
> http://zh-yue.wikipedia.org
> 
> ?


 
Well, I shouldn't say written Catonese is the same as Mandarin. You of course can write in Cantonese. But in real life situation, people don't write like they talk in Cantonese, except in really informal situations. For formal letters, newspapers, literature, etc, it is almost unacceptable to write like you speak Cantonese. Students at school learn to write compositions in the Mandarin-type of Chinese, but not the spoken-Cantonese type.

As for 孩子, it is "samanjai" or 細路仔" etc, in spoken Cantonese. But when we write, we use 孩子, which is the same as Mandarin. However, it has a Cantonese pronunciation.


----------



## vince

Sorry, I was just trying to discourage the use of "Written Cantonese" to mean the same as "Written Chinese".

But i'm still wondering about:
how do you tell the difference between  Mandarin / Written Chinese's 孩子 and  孩子们 in Cantonese?


----------



## Kwunlam

LikeBarleyBending said:


> Actually, I have never thought about such a question. To me, the answer might be:
> When no numeral is put before the noun, then 们 should be added, e.g.:
> 
> 孩子们来了吗？
> 
> When there is a numeral before the noun, then no '们' is ncessary:
> 
> － 孩子们来了吗？(Are the kids already here?)
> － 来了3个孩子。 (Three kids are here.)
> 
> Hope it helps


Or phrasing it into another way, if it is obvious from the word or if it is suggested in the context that it is plural, then we do not have to write it with 們.

we seldom add "們" here: 
e.g. 康德和黑格爾都是偉大的德國哲學家（們）.
Kant and Hegel are great German philosophers.

For words like "觀眾" (onlookers) or "聽眾" (audience),  some people would argue that "眾" itself already suggests a crowd of people, and thus we don't really need further signs to express the plurality. But nowadays, some people may tend to treat "觀眾" as a term to express ONE MAN, and they would sometimes say "觀眾們", "聽眾們". But purists may argue that it is semantically redundant.  

 Also, cats, dogs, and animals, insents, never use with 們.


vince said:


> Sorry, I was just trying to discourage the use of "Written Cantonese" to mean the same as "Written Chinese".
> 
> But i'm still wondering about:
> how do you tell the difference between Mandarin / Written Chinese's 孩子 and 孩子们 in Cantonese?


 As Chinese words themselves do not have to be distinguished into singular/plural, so the word "孩子" is flexible, it could be singular, could be plural.  Usually the context will indicate.  If not, we can add numerals or other words to express the plural-ness, not necessarily with "們" though it may seem convenient.

By the way, if we ask "do you like kids/children?" , 
we just say 
"你喜歡孩子嗎 ?" ni3 xi3huan1 hai2zi ma

And people would understand without much understanding. People would normally not reply you saying "do you like ONE kid or MANY kids". 

 And "你喜歡孩子們嗎 ?" would sounds quite weird, since "孩子們" may indicate a *particular* group of children.


----------



## Mugi

To summarize some of what others have said and add a little more info:

Personal pronouns
Mandarin: 们 must be added to the pronoun to pluralize it.
Cantonese: 哋 (dei6) must be added to the pronoun to pluralize it.
Taiwanese: The plural marker (-n) has merged with the singular pronoun to form independent plural pronouns:
我 goa → goan or gun (阮)
汝 (你) li → lin (恁/您)
伊 i → in (イ因)

Human groups
Mandarin: 们 can be added to specifiy that you're talking about a group (e.g. 孩子们, 女士们). This is now the norm, but is the result of influence from Western languages. First truly appeared in 白话文 after the May 4th Movement. Prior to that, singular and plural would have been distinguished by context or the use of 各(个/位) or perhaps 这/那些, as is still the case in most other Sinitic languages.
Cantonese: 哋 can seldom be suffixed to the noun. Instead, in colloquial speech it's common to prefex the noun with 啲 (di1), which means "some", or in more formal situations, to use 各.
Taiwanese: No suffix exists to specifiy the plural. You have to use 各 or "chiah(-e)/hiah(-e)" (the equivalent of 这/那些) before the noun.

However, in the Shijiazhuang dialect (and other Jin languages (晋语), found mainly in 山西), 们 can be suffixed to other animate nouns (e.g. pig) as well as inanimate nouns (e.g. car) and even to uncountable nouns (e.g. water) to form plurals or indicate relatively large quantity!


----------



## kareno999

Shanghainese
我(ngu or u by many younsters)     阿拉('ala)
侬(nong)   na
伊(i)         伊拉(ila)
There seems to be no similar particle like "们"or"哋". I'm not quite sure.


----------



## melop

In Cantonese pronouns, "o地" tei is equivalent to mandarin men. 
As mentioned already, it doesn't apply to common nouns, even nouns of people.
However, we use another way to bring the attention of the audiences. Usually, gok wai 各位 (=ge4 wei4 in mandarin) can be used before the noun, eg. gok wai siu peng yau, "each little friends".


----------

