# 我写字画画儿都不很好



## alexonline

Hi,guys.

Here I have an excerpt from a dialog:

A: 你写字写得很好，画画儿也画得很好，明天你参加比赛码？
B: 哪里，我写字画画儿都不很好，小长写得比我好，画得也比我好，让他参加吧！

Verb + 得 + adverbial modifier of assessment is everywhere except in ...我写字画画儿都不很好... .

Is that because there`s a 都 where a 得 should be or there`s a different reason here?

Is it possible to say smth like  我写字画画儿得不很好?


Thanks a lot.


----------



## M Mira

alexonline said:


> A: 你写字写得很好，画画儿也画得很好，明天你参加比赛码？
> B: 哪里，我写字画画儿都不很好，小长写得比我好，画得也比我好，让他参加吧！


得 must be placed immediately after the verb, not even dummy objects are allowed, but it's possible to reduplicate the verb again (see blue parts) in order to use 得. However, there's no way to do that for more than one verb, so 得 can't be used there. I'm not entirely sure what's the structure there though, maybe 写字画画儿 are considered nouns there?

For the last question: no, that doesn't work because 得 is not immeiately after a verb.

For the second to last question: I think it's more about having two verbs rather than having 都.
e.g.
他無論寫詩寫小說(都寫得很好/寫得都很好)
他不管畫人畫景物(都畫得很糟糕/畫得都很糟糕)
Are fine as the two verbs are the same and thus can be reduplicated.


----------



## retrogradedwithwind

画画
。The firs 画 is a verb and the second is a noun.


----------



## alexonline

M Mira said:


> I'm not entirely sure what's the structure there though, maybe 写字画画儿 are considered nouns there?



Thanks a lot,M Mira. So it`s totally possible to interpret  我写字画画儿都不很好 as
'My writing characters and drawing pictures are not very good' - both nouns?

Then 我的写字画画儿都不很好 is also correct?


----------



## M Mira

Hmm, apparently I was wrong about that.


----------



## rexruan

generally, 得 is an aux which modifies how the following verb is done meanwhile "的“ is an aux to modify the followed noun with adj.


----------



## OneStroke

alexonline said:


> So it`s totally possible to interpret  我写字画画儿都不很好 as 'My writing characters and drawing pictures are not very good' - both nouns?
> 
> Then 我的写字画画儿都不很好 is also correct?



In Chinese, verb phrases or even entire clauses can appear in subject position. They do not thus become nouns or noun phrases, and IMO should not be interpreted as having gone through conversion/zero derivation, as your example *我的写字画画儿都不很好 shows.


----------



## alexonline

OneStroke said:


> In Chinese, verb phrases or even entire clauses can appear in subject position.



OneStroke, you mean to say that the sentence 我写字画画儿都不很好 besides being a S + V V sentence with two consecutive  blocks of V + O  (写字画画儿)  as was explained by M Mira, could be interpreted as a double subject sentence 'I - write characters, draw pictures - not very good', by analogy with a double subject sentence 象鼻子长 (elephant - nose - long), with the only exception that the second subject in the former is a verb (or rather, two verbs), not a noun as in the latter?


----------



## OneStroke

To be honest, I've never heard of a double subject before... I think it's still a S + V V construction with two consecutive blocks of V + O. I'm just saying that the S + V V construction is acting as the subject. In the case of 象鼻子長, I'd say 象鼻子 is a nominal phrase, constituting a single subject.

I would parse 我写字画画儿都不很好 this way:

[Clause[Non-finite clause acting as subject 我写字画画儿][Verb phrase 都不很好]]

In Chinese, entire clauses can act as subjects without a complementiser:

總統修改憲法使全國震怒。
-> lit., 'That the president had changed the constitution made the entire nation furious.'

(By the way, I'm not referring to any incident in real life; it's just a random example. )

Another alternative solution I can come up with is that 我 is perhaps a hanging topic. Either way, though, I'm not sure I'd call it a double subject sentence.


----------



## L3P

Thanks,OneStroke.



OneStroke said:


> To be honest, I've never heard of a double subject before...



Well,the paradigm and the term 'double-subject sentences' in teaching Chinese grammar is very popular in Slavic countries as well as in English-speaking world. As an example (you might be interested to get familiar with): "Mandarin Chinese. A Functional Reference Grammar.Charles N.Li,Sandra A.Thompson."  Search for 'Double-Subject Sentences'.Would be interesting to know your take on it. As for me, it does make sense.



OneStroke said:


> (By the way, I'm not referring to any incident in real life; it's just a random example. )



Yeah,sure,I`ve been there 



OneStroke said:


> I would parse 我写字画画儿都不很好 this way: [Clause[Non-finite clause acting as subject 我写字画画儿][Verb phrase 都不很好]]



So 'I don`t draw very well' could be rendered into Chinese in two ways:
1.我画儿画得不很好 - regular
2.我画画儿不很好 -  [Clause[Non-finite clause acting as subject 我画画儿][Verb phrase 不很好]]

Am I right?

Sorry,it`s Alex, not L3P, I accidentally commented from my partner`s account.


----------



## OneStroke

L3P said:


> Well,the paradigm and the term 'double-subject sentences' in teaching Chinese grammar is very popular in Slavic countries as well as in English-speaking world. As an example (you might be interested to get familiar with): "Mandarin Chinese. A Functional Reference Grammar.Charles N.Li,Sandra A.Thompson."  Search for 'Double-Subject Sentences'.Would be interesting to know your take on it. As for me, it does make sense.



I've searched for the term 'double subject'. Apparently, Li and Thompson agreed with my second suggestion: That the first 'subject' is actually a topic. They wrote, 'Sentences like (17)-(22) have been called double-subject constructions because earlier investigators, not thinking about such a notion as "topic", analyzed such sentences as having two subjects...'


> So 'I don`t draw very well' could be rendered into Chinese in two ways:
> 1.我画儿画得不很好 - regular
> 2.我画画儿不很好 -  [Clause[Non-finite clause acting as subject 我画画儿][Verb phrase 不很好]]
> 
> Am I right?



1. should be 我画画儿画得不很好, but I think the second is correct, yes.


----------



## alexonline

Thanks a lot,OneStroke,I really appreciate your help. I had no idea that a sentence of the kind  我画画儿画得不很好 (with 得) could be converted into one without 得, like in 我画画儿不很好, that`s a revelation 

Then,how do you feel about M Mira`s opinion on the absence of 得  on account of there being two consecutive  verbs  我写字画画儿都不很好? 

"...得 must be placed immediately after the verb, not even dummy objects are allowed, ... . However, there's no way to do that for more than one verb, so 得 can't be used there. ... I think it's more about having two verbs rather than having 都"

Hence two last questions:
1. Can it be true (if we don`t consider it as Topic + Subject + Verb)?
2. If we do consider it as Topic + Subject + Verb, then the 得 is not needed, right?

Thanks again.


----------



## OneStroke

I'm not sure why you consider the Topic + Subject + Verb analysis for 我写字画画儿都不很好 to be mutually exclusive with M Mira's explanation, which seemed to be aimed at explaining the ungrammaticality of *我写字画画儿得不很好. It's true that 得 must follow the verb, or reduplicating the verb is necessary to avoid ungrammaticality, and that a single 得-phrase cannot be the complement of two verbs.

I don't think I understood 2. Which 得 were you referring to?


----------



## alexonline

I mean that the sentence  我写字画画儿都不很好 can be looked at from two points of view:
1. Subject + Verb Verb
2. Topic + Subject + Verb 

In other words, the sentence 'I read a lot' would be:
1. 我看书看得很多
2.我看书很多


----------



## OneStroke

Oh, no, sorry, I must have caused some misunderstanding. The interpretation should be:


[Topic 我][Subject [Verb phrase 写字] [Verb phrase 画画儿]] [Verb phrase 都不很好]


----------



## alexonline

OneStroke said:


> The interpretation should be:
> [Topic 我][Subject [Verb phrase 写字] [Verb phrase 画画儿]] [Verb phrase 都不很好]



That`s clear. 
How about  the sentence 'I read a lot', is #2 correct)?
1. 我看书看得很多 
2.我看书很多 - TSV


----------



## OneStroke

(1) is correct. Although (2) isn't syntactically wrong, it sounds a bit weird... I guess the collocation's a bit off. I wonder what others think?


----------



## alexonline

OneStroke said:


> Although 我看书很多  isn't syntactically wrong, it sounds a bit weird...



Is it weird because of the 多？Or the whole idea of  VO being used as a subject in a TSV sentence is wrong, as in 我画画儿不很好?

But earlier you said VO *can* act as a subject in a TSV model:

"1.我画儿画得不很好 - regular
2.我画画儿不很好 - [Clause[Non-finite clause acting as subject 我画画儿][Verb phrase 不很好]]

Am I right?
1. should be 我画画儿画得不很好, but I think the second is correct, yes."


----------



## OneStroke

alexonline said:


> Is it weird because of the 多？Or the whole idea of  VO being used as a subject in a TSV sentence is wrong, as in 我画画儿不很好?
> 
> But earlier you said VO *can* act as a subject in a TSV model:



It definitely can. I think the problem is with collocation.


----------

