# 他要往美国寄这些书 / 他这些书要往美国寄



## rydell

大家好，

In this sentence: 他要往美国寄, where should I collocate 这些书? at the beginning after 他 or at the end of the sentence?

多谢


----------



## cinzia87

both are grammatically OK, with different connotations.

他要往美国寄这些书, means 'He's going to send these books to the US'.
他这些书要往美国寄, means 'These books of his are to be shipped to the US'.


----------



## Skatinginbc

他要往美国寄这些书 = 他要到美国寄这些书 .  
Indefiniteness: 往死裡打_一_顿, 往衙門走_一_回, 往家裡寄錢 (good) vs. definiteness: *往死裡打这顿, *往衙門走这回, 往家裡寄这些錢 (awkward) vs. 寄这些錢回家  (good). 他要把这些书寄到美国 (good).


----------



## SuperXW

Skatinginbc said:


> 他要往美国寄这些书 = 他要到美国寄这些书 .


I don't think people I know would interpret 他要往美国寄这些书 as 他要到美国寄这些书.
I think people interpret 往...寄 as 向...寄, not 去...寄/到...寄.


----------



## brofeelgood

Hmm... if verbs meaning send or dispatch are used, like 寄,送,打,运,发,汇 etc, I'd find it very much understandable, although I would still prefer Skatinginbc's suggestion to use 他要把这些书寄到美国.

In other cases, e.g. 他要往美国深造, 他要往美国工作, I'd advocate using 前往 instead or maybe adding a 去.
- 他要(前)往美国(去)工作.


----------



## Romildo

rydell said:


> In this sentence: 他要往美国寄, where should I collocate 这些书? at the beginning after 他 or at the end of the sentence?


"往"在这里的用法稍显口语化，我认为标准的说法应该是"他要把这些书寄往（到）美国。"

但是从语法的角度，下列组合都是正确的：

1. 这些书他要往美国寄（，那些书他要往英国寄）。﻿
2. 他（的）这些书要往美国寄。
3. 他要往美国寄这些书。

注：往美国寄=寄往美国


brofeelgood said:


> I'd advocate using 前往 instead or maybe adding a 去.
> - 他要(前)往美国(去)工作.


"他要前往美国工作"是完全正确的。但，"他要往美国去工作"的说法恐怕太不地道吧


----------



## Skatinginbc

寄往美国 = 寄到美国
Why 寄往美国 = 往美国寄 but 寄到美国 ≠ 到美国寄?


----------



## SuperXW

Skatinginbc said:


> 寄往美国 = 寄到美国
> Why 寄往美国 = 往美国寄 but 寄到美国 ≠ 到美国寄?


This is why we have "fixed expressions". Language is based on conventional rules, and it is not maths...
We can also analyze them from linguistic perspective, such as 现代汉语中，“到”比“往”更常被用作动词，“往”一般做介词。 "到美国寄"中的“到”变成独立动词了。
I don't know whether there's any regional difference, but I consider 寄往 and 寄到 are rather basic usages. If you confuse them in real life, I would feel you need to work on your vernacular Chinese. (No offence.)


----------



## Romildo

Direct translation:

往："toward" or "to"
到："arrive at"


----------



## Skatinginbc

SuperXW said:


> 现代汉语中，“到”比“往”更常被用作动词，“往”一般做介词。 "到美国寄"中的“到”变成独立动词了。


Thanks  for your input.  I now think: 往 as a verb is no longer a free morpheme  in modern Mandarin and that's why 往 in 往美国寄 is naturally interpreted as a  preposition.  到 (preposition) means "till" (指时间), which does not go with a place name (e.g., 美国), and so 到 in 到美国寄 is naturally interpreted as a verb. 


SuperXW said:


> 寄往 and 寄到 are rather basic usages. If you confuse them...


寄往 ≠ 寄到???  Perhaps you meant in a different context, but I meant and still think 要寄往美国 = 要寄到美国去 = 要寄去美国 = 要寄到美国 = 要寄至美国 = 要寄達美国.  往 in 寄往 is a verb, like 到, 去, 至, 達.  It precedes a destination (意为从这个地方走向目的地。本义:去,到…去 "head for + destination").  Thus 飛往美国 = 飛到美国去; 跑往美国 = 跑到美国去; 開往美国 = 開到美国去; 寄往美国 = 寄到美国去.  In contrast, 往 as a preposition means 望 (表示動作的方向, 相当于“朝”、“向”), which indicates the direction, not always the destination. Thus 往美国開 could mean 朝美国方向開 (≠ 開往美国/開到美国去); 往美国寄 theoretically could also mean 朝美国方向寄 (≠ 寄往美国/寄到美国去). 

The relationship between 寄往美国 and 往美国寄 is not a simple movement of an element.  往東走三步 is not a transformation from *走往東三步; 往美国寄東西 is not from *寄往美国東西 (compare: 東西往美国寄, 東西寄往美国).  Perhaps, it has some bearing on my acceptance for 这些书要往美国寄 (cf. 這隻鳥要往高處飛) and my reluctance for 要往美国寄这些书 (cf. 要往高處飛這隻鳥?? = 要去高處讓這隻鳥飛??).


----------



## SuperXW

I generally agree with you. Sorry I meant "寄往美国 = 往美国寄 but 寄到美国 ≠ 到美国寄" is rather basic. Of course 寄往 = 寄到.
不過我不把“寄往"的“往”當成動詞。按照我在內地所學的語法，“寄往...”中：“寄”是動詞，“往...”是介詞短語作補語。


----------



## Skatinginbc

SuperXW said:


> 不過我不把“寄往"的“往”當成動詞。按照我在內地所學的語法，“寄往...”中：“寄”是動詞，“往...”是介詞短語作補語。


When 往 serves as a preposition, it can be substituted with 望.  Can I say 飛望美国 (飛往美国), 跑望美国 (跑往美国), 開望美国 (開往美国), or 寄望美国 (寄往美国)?  It can also be substituted with 朝.  Can I say 飛朝美国 (飛往美国), 跑朝美国 (跑往美国), 開朝美国 (開往美国), or 寄朝美国 (寄往美国)?  向 can serve as a verb meaning "go, head for + 目的地".  Thus it is also idiomatic to say 飛向美国, 跑向美国, 開向美国, or 寄向美国.  By the way, 寄向 +  目的地 is common in Middle Chinese. 
I guess the treatment of 往 in 寄往 as a preposition reflects the trend that 往 (preposition) is often used to mean "to" 目的地  (as opposed to "toward" 方向) in northern dialects.  For instance, 你三番兩次往我這兒跑 sounds like something a northerner might say while 你三番兩次跑到我這裡 is more common in Taiwan.


----------



## SuperXW

Skatinginbc said:


> When 往 serves as a preposition, it can be substituted with 望.  Can I say 飛望美国 (飛往美国), 跑望美国 (跑往美国), 開望美国 (開往美国), or 寄望美国 (寄往美国)?  It can also be substituted with 朝.  Can I say 飛朝美国 (飛往美国), 跑朝美国 (跑往美国), 開朝美国 (開往美国), or 寄朝美国 (寄往美国)?  向 can serve as a verb meaning "go, head for + 目的地".  Thus it is also idiomatic to say 飛向美国, 跑向美国, 開向美国, or 寄向美国.  By the way, 寄向 +  目的地 is common in Middle Chinese.
> I guess the treatment of 往 in 寄往 as a preposition reflects the trend that 往 (preposition) is often used to mean "to" 目的地  (as opposed to "toward" 方向) in northern dialects.  For instance, 你三番兩次往我這兒跑 sounds like something a northerner might say while 你三番兩次跑到我這裡 is more common in Taiwan.


首先，我从来不知道“望”可以取代“往”，是古代用法吗？
第二，还是那句话，语文不是数学，并不是说两个字意思一样，就可以随时替换。就如同英文中的"verb phrase"概念一样，词语间有固定搭配，某动词后习惯性地接A不接B，很正常。
第三，汉语的介词大部分都可以独立作动词吧？我感觉"朝"作动词的机会比“向”更大。也许我们对“介词”的理解不同？反正我把引出方位但又不讲明动作的词都归为介词。
第四，我的理解肯定有地域和时间的局限性，古汉语我是完全不懂的，这我承认。


----------



## Skatinginbc

SuperXW said:


> 不知道“望”可以取代“往”，是古代用法吗？


《唐書志傳》又被曹珍於山後設疑兵,亦不敢進,望後退歸天水。
《金瓶梅》被婦人反手望臉上撾了一下
《水滸傳》武行者聽了,跳起身來,叉開五指,望店主人臉上只一掌,把那店主人打個踉蹌,直撞過那邊去。
《封神演義》急自上馬,望前看時,只見兩杆旗旛開處
朱自清《阿河》我常常看見阿河挈著水壺來往；她的眼似乎總是望前看的。
孫皓暉《大秦帝國》然进得大梁，苏秦的心却直望下沉。 
Actually, I have a habit of pronouncing 往 (preposition) as 望 wang4 (e.g., 往 wang4 火坑跳 vs. 跳往 wang3 火坑; also 往wang4美国寄 vs. 寄往wang3美国).  The tonal change suggests a change in grammatical category to me.


SuperXW said:


> "朝"作动词的机会比“向”更大。


區別在於"朝"作動詞是"面對"、"面向"的意思。 “向”作動詞能有"去,到"的意思 (e.g., 閒向溪邊磨巨斧). 白居易: 寄向長安城(=寄到長安城去).
Why 向前走 ≠ 走向前?  I think it is because 向 in 向前走 (= 朝前方走) is a directional preposition, while  the one in 走向前 (= 走到前面去) is a verb (destination).


----------



## SuperXW

Skatinginbc said:


> Actually, I have a habit of pronouncing 往 (preposition) as 望 wang4 (e.g., 往 wang4 火坑跳 vs. 跳往 wang3 火坑; also 往wang4美国寄 vs. 寄往wang3美国).  The tonal change suggests a change in grammatical category to me.
> 
> 區別在於"朝"作動詞是"面對"、"面向"的意思。 “向”作動詞能有"去,到"的意思 (e.g., 閒向溪邊磨巨斧). 白居易: 寄向長安城(=寄到長安城去).
> Why 向前走 ≠ 走向前?  I think it is because 向 in 向前走 (= 朝前方走) is a directional preposition, while  the one in 走向前 (= 走到前面去) is a verb (destination).


谢谢，关于"往"，确实经常读wang4，看来如你所说，旧时通"望"。

关于介词与动词的区别，我觉得你的理解方法也行，可能更能解释古汉语。现代文中，我的感觉是“往”"向"极少能脱离其他动词单独成句，说明它们只是辅助作用；只要它们在句中依附其他动词，我就把它们归类为方位介词。
为什么“向前走”不同于“走向前”？我的理解并非词性变化，而是以下的中式思维形成了习惯：
向前走：“向前”在前做状语，此状态需加强调，因此这个“前方”更长远；
走向前：“向前”在后做补语，补语的重要性不如状语，因此只是较近的“前方”。
即使像你那样理解，一个讲“方向”一个讲“目的地”，也并不能证明讲“目的地”就是动词啊？
你若解释为动词，还有个问题，就是汉语很少两个单音节动词连用。"走向前"="walk arrive the front"? 感觉怪怪的。

不过现在想想，觉得你的问题值得研究，并不简单。我上面的观点可能也有漏洞，欢迎指出。
介词方位很微妙：为什么我们说“在公园玩”，但不说“玩在公园”；“乐在迪士尼”，但不说“在迪士尼乐”；“生在北京”和“在北京生”却都可以……值得探讨。


----------



## Skatinginbc

SuperXW said:


> 汉语很少两个单音节动词连用。"走向前"="walk arrive the front"? 感觉怪怪的。


"Chain verb" (also known as "serial verb construction",  "verb  serialization", or "verb stacking") is a common syntactic  phenomenon in  Chinese.  For example, 屠殺 (slaughter and kill), 解釋 (interpret and  explain), 逃脫 (escape and turn loose), 擴充 (expand and make full), 練成  (practice and accomplish), to name just a few.  
送達(have it delivered and reach): e.g., 將公文送達各專屬單位辦理 (Note: 達 can be a  standalone verb as in 函達各門希轉飭官商人等遵照由, meaning 公文到達各部門後,  希望能轉告督飭官商人等遵照執行).  I believe 送達 is structurally parallel to 寄往 (have it  sent and head for) as in 他这些书要寄往美国.


SuperXW said:


> 向前走：“向前”在前做状语，此状态需加强调，因此这个“前方”更长远；
> 走向前：“向前”在后做补语，补语的重要性不如状语，因此只是较近的“前方”。


No matter it should be  called "状语 vs. 补语" or "preposition vs. verb", I think you agree that the  difference in position may result in a semantic change.  For instance,  往美国寄 could mean "send toward the US", while 寄往美国 surely means "send to  the US".  往美国寄 is not a common alternative for 寄往美国 "send to the US" in  my dialect.  And there seems to be additional constraints in my dialect  regarding the position and attributes of its direct object (in this  case, 这些书).  他要往美国寄这些书, albeit understandable, does not sound  "correct/standard" to me.  And I've been trying to figure out a  governing rule behind it so as to explain why 他这些书要往美国寄 sounds better  than 他要往美国寄这些书.  So far I haven't found a satisfactory answer.


----------



## brofeelgood

With regard to the last point, context maybe?

他这些书打算怎么处理? (emphasis is on the intended action on a pre-stated article)
A1: 他这些书要往美国寄 / 他这些书要寄往美国.
A2: 他要往美国寄这些书. 

他要往美国寄些什么东西? (emphasis is on the intended article of a pre-defined action)
A1: 他要往美国寄这些书. 
A2: 他这些书要往美国寄/ 他这些书要寄往美国.

In both cases, I find A2 less suitable as answers.


----------



## Skatinginbc

brofeelgood said:


> 他要往美国寄些什么东西? (emphasis is on the intended article of a pre-defined action)


Believe it or not, my natural response would be 大麻, 他要往美国寄大麻 (indefiniteness, as opposed to 这些大麻).  I don't know why, but I expect the 东西 that somebody 往美国寄 is something bad, especially if 往 is pronounced as wang4.


----------



## brofeelgood

Hmm fair enough, how about ...

(pointing at some books) 这几本书啊,他要往美国寄这几本书.

I couldn't help it, but of all things, the one that sprang to your mind was 大麻...


----------



## Skatinginbc

brofeelgood said:


> (pointing at some books) 这几本书啊,他要往美国寄这几本书.


It  sounds natural to me largely because 这几本书啊,他要往美国寄 is good.  The rest is  treated as mumbling repetition often encountered in natural speech.   Perhaps because 往美国寄 is "marked" (not usual) in my dialect, I expect  peculiarity, significance, or difficulty in sending those books to the  planned destination (Are they pornos? ).  Contrast is able to justify  "markedness", for instance, 这几本书啊,他要往美国寄; 其餘的到英國 (这几本书 vs. 其餘的; 美国 vs.  英國), and I think I've found the reason why I prefer 这几本书他要往美国寄 over  他要往美国寄这几本书, that is, topicalization, which may imply contrast.


----------



## brofeelgood

Skatinginbc said:


> It  sounds natural to me largely because 这几本书啊,他要往美国寄 is good.  The rest is  treated as mumbling repetition often encountered in natural speech.   Perhaps because 往美国寄 is "marked" (not usual) in my dialect, I expect  peculiarity, significance, or difficulty in sending those books to the  planned destination (Are they pornos? ).  Contrast is able to justify  "markedness", for instance, 这几本书啊,他要往美国寄; 其餘的到英國 (这几本书 vs. 其餘的; 美国 vs.  英國), and I think *I've found the reason why I prefer 这几本书他要往美国寄 over  他要往美国寄这几本书, that is, topicalization, which may imply contrast.*



Totally agree.


----------



## SuperXW

Skatinginbc said:


> No matter it should be  called "状语 vs. 补语" or "preposition vs. verb", I think you agree that the  difference in position may result in a semantic change.  For instance,  往美国寄 could mean "send toward the US", while 寄往美国 surely means "send to  the US".  往美国寄 is not a common alternative for 寄往美国 "send to the US" in  my dialect.  And there seems to be additional constraints in my dialect  regarding the position and attributes of its direct object (in this  case, 这些书).  他要往美国寄这些书, albeit understandable, does not sound  "correct/standard" to me.  And I've been trying to figure out a  governing rule behind it so as to explain why 他这些书要往美国寄 sounds better  than 他要往美国寄这些书.  So far I haven't found a satisfactory answer.


我的经验里“他要往美国寄这些书”，“他这些书要往美国寄”，“他这些书要寄往美国”都常见也正确，基本含义相同。
如果说强调重点有所不同，我感觉那更受语气重音和上下文的影响；另外，“寄往”由于可以算是合成词，显得更正式，书面常用，口语少用。


----------



## Skatinginbc

Let me summarize the rule that governs my speech: The structure 往(美国)寄 is marked (强调) in itself and thus the context (上下文) should be able to justify the use of a marked structure.  Contrast is one of the many possible reasons that one would choose a marked structure.  The unmarked equivalent for 往(美国)寄 is 寄往/到(美国).    


SuperXW said:


> 如果说强调重点有所不同，我感觉那更受语气重音和上下文的影响.


Do you mean 往(美国)寄 is not marked in itself in the Beijing dialect?  If so, it is another example for a "verb-final" tendency (like Altaic SOV word order) in the northern dialects.


----------



## fyl

The use of 往 is not odd at all in the north. So 往美国寄这些书 has the same structure as
给他送这件礼物
向球门踢红色的足球

If emphasize on 这些书 (instead of 那些书), 这件礼物, 红色的足球, this is quite natural. Otherwise I can capture a very little bit of oddness, because the object sounds a bit lengthy and I would prefer to use the 把 structure: 把这些书寄往美国/把这件礼物送给他/把红色的足球踢进球门.
As for word order, 往美国寄xxx is VO and 把xxx寄往美国 is OV.


----------



## SuperXW

Skatinginbc said:


> Let me summarize the rule that governs my speech: The structure 往(美国)寄 is marked (强调) in itself and thus the context (上下文) should be able to justify the use of a marked structure.  Contrast is one of the many possible reasons that one would choose a marked structure.  The unmarked equivalent for 往(美国)寄 is 寄往/到(美国).
> 
> Do you mean 往(美国)寄 is not marked in itself in the Beijing dialect?  If so, it is another example for a "verb-final" tendency (like Altaic SOV word order) in the northern dialects.


不是太懂你所讲的英文术语。我的经验中这很难算强调。还有就是据我所知这种表述在中国很多地方（包括北京）都通用，所以在内地是被当作标准汉语的，不算dialect。比如任何一个省台节目中或教材中都可能找到这种说法。


----------



## Skatinginbc

I meant: 
寄往美国 is like "John just ate an apple", which is "unmarked" (a typical structure without special emphasis).
往美国寄 is like "It was an apple that John just ate", which is "marked" (a special structure with emphasis).
From what I gathered from the responses, I believe 往美国寄 is just a typical structure without special emphasis in Mainland Mandarin.


----------



## SuperXW

SuperXW said:


> 我的经验里“他要往美国寄这些书”，“他这些书要往美国寄”，“他这些书要寄往美国”都常见也正确，基本含义相同。
> 如果说强调重点有所不同，我感觉那更受语气重音和上下文的影响；另外，“寄往”由于可以算是合成词，显得更正式，书面常用，口语少用。


我进一步解释一下我所理解的“强调重点更受语气重音和上下文的影响”：
强调“谁”：-*谁*要往美国寄这些书？ -*他*要往美国寄这些书？不是*你*吗？
强调“哪里”：-他要往*美国*寄这些书？不是*英国*吗？
强调“怎样”：-他要往美国*寄*这些书？不是顺便*带*过去吗？寄多不值啊！
强调“什么”：-他要往美国寄*这些书*？不是*那些信*吗？

倒是另外一种说法：“他这些书要往美国寄”似乎有点特别，像是topic-comment、被动、倒装之类的句式，不知算不算marked？


----------



## Skatinginbc

*谁*敢往美国寄这些书？ Take that question as an example: 
"Marked" interpretation (my dialect): Who dares to send those books to the US?  The US! 美国 carries more weight than 这些书.  
"Unmarked" interpretation (I guess Mainland Mandarin): Who dares to send those books to the US (without special emphasis)?  Neither 美国 nor 这些书 receives special emphasis. 

Also, *谁*敢往家裡寄錢？
"Marked" interpretation: 家裡 receives more emphasis than 錢.  What the speaker concerns is not so much about 錢 as 家.  For instance, he/she hates that family (家). 


SuperXW said:


> 倒是另外一种说法：“他这些书要往美国寄”似乎有点特别，像是topic-comment、被动、倒装之类的句式，不知算不算marked？


 Yes, it is "marked".  Topicalization of 这些书 gives a justification for the marked 往美国寄, and that's why I have no problem with it.


----------

