# 死人了 / 人死了



## J.F. de TROYES

A linguistic book ( not especially about Chinese ) says that sentences like 死人了 and  人死了 don't have the same meaning and the following translations are given :

死人了 , a man is dead ( the noun is not (definite) ;  人死了 , the man is dead (indefinite ).  I'd like to know a native's opinion.

Thanks a lot.


----------



## Ghabi

Hello. 死人了 is indefinite, as in "Someone is dead! Call the police!" (死人了,叫警察); while 人死了 is more context-dependent: it can be generic, as in "when one is dead, you can't bring him back to life" (人死了,再活不过来) or specific, as in "the man is dead, now what?" (人死了,现在咋办).


----------



## J.F. de TROYES

I am wondering if the order verb-subject is possible with other nouns than 人 , I mean with nouns that have not a generic value as 进老人了 ?


----------



## hx1997

Well, I'd say it's possible, but with a very limited usage.

这部剧都死了三个老人了，下一集可别再*死老人了*。
死老人了 alone sounds weird (more specifically, the construction 死X了 sounds like the death is unexpected or strange, e.g. when you unexpectedly discovered a body, but it's not at all strange for 老人 to die), though understandable.

Note that 死 is a very special verb in Chinese as it allows the person who died to come after the verb itself, e.g. 王冕死了父亲 = 王冕父亲死了 (the connotation may be different but the basic idea is the same -- 王冕's father died). Most other verbs do not allow the verb-subject order.

饭好了。
*好饭了。
天亮了。
*亮天了。


----------



## Skatinginbc

水淹金山寺 vs. 金山寺淹水
淹水 = 有水淹至，遭受洪患.「淹水了，快搬沙袋.」

鬼鬧閣樓 vs. 閣樓鬧鬼
鬧鬼 = 有鬼鬧騰，遭受鬼患.  「鬧鬼了，快請大法師.」

人死家鄉 vs. 家鄉死人
死人 = 有人死掉, 遭遇死難 .  「死人了，快叫警察.」
「這樣下去會死人的」==> 會有人死掉
「聽說那裡死人了」==> 那裡有人死掉


J.F. de TROYES said:


> I am wondering if the order verb-subject is possible with other nouns than 人


I am not sure it is verb-subject.  淹水 "be flooded _with _water", 鬧鬼 "be haunted _with _ghosts", and by analogy 死人 ("be 死ed _with_ human lives", that is, "suffer human losses") look more like verb-complement to me.


----------



## J.F. de TROYES

Thanks for your explanation and examples. So it seems that putting the subject after the verb is rather unusual.


----------



## Skatinginbc

What is "_putting the subject after the verb_"?   Can you give us an example?
他們死人了 ==> If 人 is the subject, what is 他們?
He was hit by a car ==> Is the passive construction counted as an example of "_putting the subject after the verb_", since it is transformed from "A car hit him"? Do you consider "car" the "_subject_" in "He was hit by a car"?
My point: You may argue that 死人 is a transformation from 人死, just as "He was hit by a car" is a transformation from "A car hit him", but I don't think 人 in 死人 can still be counted as the "_subject_", nor should we call "car" in "He was hit by a car" the "_subject_."  (Edit: By "subject", I meant "grammatical subject".)


----------



## SuperXW

J.F. de TROYES said:


> Thanks for your explanation and examples. So it seems that putting the subject after the verb is rather unusual.


It does look like “putting the subject after the verb”, and it is rather unusual.
However, since the verb and the structure is special, it is rather hard to define which is "subject" and which is "object".


----------



## Skatinginbc

SuperXW said:


> it is rather hard to define which is "subject" and which is "object".


Is that so?
It is very obvious to me that 王冕 is the subject in 王冕死了父亲 "Wong lost his father" (parallel to 死了人), whereas (王冕的)父亲 "father" is the subject in 王冕(的)父亲死了 "Wong's father died" (parallel to 人死了).
There is no doubt in my mind that 父亲 "father" (or 人) is NOT the subject in 王冕死了父亲 "Wong lost his father" (or 死了人).


----------



## SuperXW

^
直译：lost=失去，die=死。
将“死”解释为“失去”，是它的衍生用法，并非原意。这恰恰反映了其特殊性。

再说，
在汉语里有“死人”的说法，你可以定义“前面的就是主语”，你开心就好。但英语就行不通，因为你只能写“Wong's father die”而不能写成“Wong die father”，你不能用汉语主语定义英语的subject。
你举的英语句子"He was hit by a car"有清楚的被动结构，"死人"却没有，根本不能类比。

动词的主被动语态混用，在古汉语中也许常见些，古汉语连名词都可以做动词，但我不会把它们视为现代标准汉语的一般用法。
“死人了”是特例（你举的几个例子都是特例，而且不要老扯远，你那几句都有地点词，原句根本没有）。随机找一个现代汉语中的动宾词组，很难出现这样的情况。
Hx已经列举过反例了，我再举一个，“人活了”可以，“活人了”就不通。
Ghabi的解释，也说明了“死人了”和“人死了”使用场合都不一样，不是简单的语序颠倒，这也说明了其特殊性。


----------



## Skatinginbc

SuperXW said:


> 这恰恰反映了其特殊性...这也说明了其特殊性


Did I question its 特殊性?  I was discussing the "subject" 主语.


SuperXW said:


> 直译：lost=失去，die=死。将“死”解释为“失去”，是它的衍生用法，并非原意。


「王冕死了父亲」就是「王冕丧父」"Wong lost his father"的意思. 「王冕死了父亲」 和 「王冕丧了父亲」 句型不同嗎?  「王冕」 (experiencer) 不是「王冕丧父」的主语?


SuperXW said:


> 你那几句都有地点词，原句根本没有


我那几句: 「淹水了，快搬沙袋.」 (see #5), 「鬧鬼了，快請大法師.」 (see #5), 「死人了，快叫警察.」 (see #5) ==> 三句句型不同嗎? 還有: 「來客人了, 快接去.」(有客人來了), 「倒牆了, 快閃.」(有牆倒了), 「走人了, 快追.」 (有人逃走了)...太多了, 懶得寫...


----------



## SuperXW

Skatinginbc said:


> Did I question its 特殊性?  I was discussing the "subject" 主语.
> 「王冕死了父亲」就是「王冕丧父」"Wong lost his father"的意思. 「王冕死了父亲」 和 「王冕丧了父亲」 句型不同嗎?  「王冕」 (experiencer) 不是「王冕丧父」的主语?


这两句中文句型确实一样，但和“人死了”“死人了”一样吗？你说parallel，我觉得根本不pa……
我们就说主语吧？重申，你不能用汉语主语定义英语的subject，理由已给。

对英语使用者来说，没有die people的说法，也就很难理解“人”怎样不做subject。

我的原观点（#8）：...since the verb and the structure is special, it is rather hard to define which is "subject" and which is "object".
如果你觉得不难，那请定义并解释一下：“死人了”这句话的subject和object。

我能想到的定义和解释类似这样：“死/淹/闹”后面，如果加“人/水/鬼”，则不能视其为主语（？），不能视为倒装（？），应视为宾语（？），但此宾语并非受词（？）……
其实我也不知怎样定义，总之是特例，不具普适性……


----------



## Skatinginbc

SuperXW said:


> “人死了”“死人了”一样吗？你说parallel，我觉得根本不pa……


我何時說過「人死了」和「死人了」結構一樣？ 我說：
王冕死了父親 的「死了父親」和「死了人」的結構一樣.
王冕父親死了 的「父親死了」和「人死了」的結構一樣.

王冕死了父親，別告訴他.
工廠死了人，別報警.
球隊死了人，別聲張.
「王冕」 「工廠」「球隊」are experiencers (主詞).

「王冕死了父親」是從 hx1997的帖子裡直接抄來的.

(這裡)死人了，快叫警察.  ==> 有個虛無主詞 (類似英文 there is a man dying 的 there) 或者暗示的主詞 (implied subject): 通常是「這裡」.  總之，我覺得「人」顯然不是該句的grammatical subject (surface subject).

你所謂的「非受詞賓語」似乎就是我前面(#5)提過的 complement.  看來我們的看法其實是一致的:  「人」 (in 死人了) 可說是 subject complement of the verb, 但絕非 grammatical subject of the sentence.


----------



## SuperXW

你后面的这些解释我认同，不过我觉得恐怕也只能这样复杂地解释，而不宜用其它的词语、句型去类比。
包括“代词/地点+死人了”，前面多个词，就和“死人了”明显不一样。比如有一种归类法会把“死人了”归为“无主句”。
特例是特例。如果去做类比，只会越来越复杂，难以理解。


----------



## hx1997

我明白 Skating 的意思了。他是说死人了这结构不能视为 verb-subject，因为人在该句中根本不是 subject。赵元任书中也把这种结构叫做动宾式，且提到“有些文法学家会把动宾式的宾语和动补式的补语都称为补语”。I stand corrected.

不过我想另外提一下话题 (topic) 的概念，因为汉语是话题优先语言 (topic-prominent language)，和英语这个主语优先语言不同。

王冕 (topic, subject) 死了父亲 (comment)。
王冕 (topic) 父亲 (subject) 死了 (父亲死了 as a whole -- comment)。
死人了。(null-subject)
人 (topic, subject) 死了 (comment)。

以上是我认为的这几句的结构。第三句是无主句，没有主语。维基百科也说话题优先语言的特征是“没有虚设代词（dummy pronoun，如英语'It is raining'中的'It'），因为话题优先语言著重将话题表达，因此并不一定需要主词”。


----------



## Skatinginbc

王冕父親死了 和 王冕死了父親 意思不完全相同.

漢語有許多無主詞的句子，譬如：起風了 (風刮起來了)，下雨了 (雨落下來了) 等等.


----------



## YangMuye

I think the pattern is very commonly used for describing phenomena.
刮风了，下雨了，打雷了，停电了，停水了，出事了，死人了，闹鬼了​I think we tend to put the definite noun in the subject's slot and may leave it blank if we can't find a good candidate.
As you can't anticipate if something will happen, when it actually happens, there's no way to refer it as a definite noun.

On the country, when something has already happened and you refer to it as a definite when describing it's completion.
风停了，雨停了，事情解决了​They sound good even if you add adjectives like 这场 (雨停了) or 刚刚/正在下的(雨停了)

But I don't know why we still say
不打雷了，来水了，来电了，没事了​It seems that in 来水了 and 来电了 are perceived as independent events rather than related to the previously 停电了 and 停水了.
Perhaps because of the natural of 停, when an entity loses its existence, it loses its identity that we don't perceive a later instance to be identical to the previous one.
We don't say 来刚才停的水了 or 来刚才停的电了, although 刚才停的水了又来了 doesn't sound that off to me.

没事了 seems to be a fixed phrase only refers to the general state. We can't say something like 刚刚出的事没了, although do do say 没你的事了.


----------

