# 看<的 / 得>懂



## J.F. de TROYES

I'd like to ask you a basic question about using  的  in the following sentence  :

多練習慢慢就會都看的懂!

I've learned this particle is used to link a deteminer of any kind and a determinatum that can be nothing but a noun or a pronoun and I am  pretty sure " dǒng " is a verb ; so the end of this sentence is puzzling me : what does it mean, why is "de" used ? 
Thanks a lot.


----------



## On Retrouve a Paris

verb + 的(acutally it is 得) + verb/adj, 后面的verb/adv是用来形容前面的verb. 
还可以说:
看的(得)清楚
看的(得)明白
看的(得)仔细
看的(得)眼花缭乱
做的(得)到位
吃的(得)很香
玩的(得)尽兴 

it means with more and more pratice, slowly you will see it through(understand what it says)


----------



## samanthalee

On_Retrouve_a_Paris is right. It's a typo. The character should be 得, not 的.


----------



## palomnik

On Retrouve a Paris said:


> verb + 的(acutally it is 得) + verb/adj, 后面的verb/adv是用来形容前面的verb.
> 还可以说:
> 看的(得)清楚
> 看的(得)明白
> 看的(得)仔细
> 看的(得)眼花缭乱
> 做的(得)到位
> 吃的(得)很香
> 玩的(得)尽兴
> 
> it means with more and more pratice, slowly you will see it through(understand what it says)


 
J.F., in Chinese grammars in English these are called "Resultative Verb Compounds."


----------



## DavidCornell

Officially the 的 is a typo in the quoted sentence. There are 的、地、得. We used to have to distinguish all of the three. But their pronunciations in fast speech are exactly the same. That's why many people who do not know the grammar very well tend to misuse or overuse 的. 

But the Chinese language authority has said that 的 and 地 can be collapsed into just 的 no matter what grammatical position. But 得 in the resultative constrution is still separate. In fact if people want to emphasize this 得, the pronunciation would be de2 with a second tone, which is different from the emphatic form of 的，which is usually the first tone or fourth tone, but never the second.


----------



## On Retrouve a Paris

palomnik said:


> J.F., in Chinese grammars in English these are called "Resultative Verb Compounds."


 
Right, resultative verb compounds, that is what I was wondering how this should be expressed in English


----------



## On Retrouve a Paris

DavidCornell said:


> Officially the 的 is a typo in the quoted sentence. There are 的、地、得. We used to have to distinguish all of the three. But their pronunciations in fast speech are exactly the same. That's why many people who do not know the grammar very well tend to misuse or overuse 的.
> 
> But the Chinese language authority has said that 的 and 地 can be collapsed into just 的 no matter what grammatical position. But 得 in the resultative constrution is still separate. In fact if people want to emphasize this 得, the pronunciation would be de2 with a second tone, which is different from the emphatic form of 的，which is usually the first tone or fourth tone, but never the second.


 
Totally agreed!


----------



## Mugi

You will find many Taiwanese, however, who do not distinguish between 的, 得 and 地 in writing, using 的 exclusively.



> But the Chinese language authority has said that 的 and 地 can be collapsed into just 的 no matter what grammatical position.


What language authority would that be exactly? Can you provide a link to organization you're referring to, or better still to the statement in question?


----------



## On Retrouve a Paris

I will leave David to provide more convincing information, but i just want to say, the statement David made makes sense to my Chinese ears


----------



## DavidCornell

The authority I am referring to is the 中国国家语言文字工作委员会. If you don't know this institution, you can google it.

This authority is similar to l'Academie française in governing the standard language, which is referred to as Putonghua.

If you want the standards regarding use of these three de's, you can find a guidebook for 普通话等级考试 or 汉语水平考试 (HSK).

When I was in elementary school, we were taught to distinguish these three de's. But when I took the National College Matriculation Exams (高考)，we were told that 的 and 地 could be collapsed into just 的. If you know how important these exams are, you can then trust what I said. If the standard did not come from the authority, no one would dare say that to the students.

As for some of the people in Taiwan that you mentioned, I do not know if they are misusing it or that people in Taiwan do not distinguish these de's. But I think the latter scenario is highly unlikely. Why? There are two reasons.

First, the distinction between these de's was not an invention by the Communist party. These distinctions were made in the New Culture Movement in the Republic of China.

Second, Mandarin textbooks used in the US, at least those I saw, distinguish these de's, no matter who wrote the textbooks, be it a Chinese mainlander or someone from Taiwan.



Mugi said:


> You will find many Taiwanese, however, who do not distinguish between 的, 得 and 地 in writing, using 的 exclusively.
> 
> What language authority would that be exactly? Can you provide a link to organization you're referring to, or better still to the statement in question?


----------



## J.F. de TROYES

Thanks for all your comments. My Chinese grammar does'nt indicate this possible shift in using the three particles "de" ; anyhow I am pleased to see that my basic question lead to such enlightening debates !


----------



## J.F. de TROYES

samanthalee said:


> On_Retrouve_a_Paris is right. It's a typo. The character should be 得, not 的.


 
To me it's clearer with 得 !


----------



## kareno999

DavidCornell said:


> The authority I am referring to is the 中国国家语言文字工作委员会. If you don't know this institution, you can google it.
> 
> This authority is similar to l'Academie française in governing the standard language, which is referred to as Putonghua.
> 
> If you want the standards regarding use of these three de's, you can find a guidebook for 普通话等级考试 or 汉语水平考试 (HSK).
> 
> When I was in elementary school, we were taught to distinguish these three de's. But when I took the National College Matriculation Exams (高考)，we were told that 的 and 地 could be collapsed into just 的. If you know how important these exams are, you can then trust what I said. If the standard did not come from the authority, no one would dare say that to the students.
> 
> As for some of the people in Taiwan that you mentioned, I do not know if they are misusing it or that people in Taiwan do not distinguish these de's. But I think the latter scenario is highly unlikely. Why? There are two reasons.
> 
> First, the distinction between these de's was not an invention by the Communist party. These distinctions were made in the New Culture Movement in the Republic of China.
> 
> Second, Mandarin textbooks used in the US, at least those I saw, distinguish these de's, no matter who wrote the textbooks, be it a Chinese mainlander or someone from Taiwan.


Sorry DavidCornell, but I have to point out that the rumor - 的&地can be used interchangeably - has never be confirmed by any national institution, although it have been flying around for years. Unless you can provide any written document which endorses the interchangeability of 的&地, I'd suggest that you stop asserting your own reliability. (Oops, I'm getting a little bit serious here)


----------



## DavidCornell

我现在不在北京，很难给你找到相关的中文资料。不过两个“的”的合并问题的确不是一个谣言，我都给你说过了，你可以看普通话等级考试的辅导材料。你要是在上海，可以去到书店里找，我保证你能够找到。我不知道你是哪一年参加高考的，至少我们那一年，这个规定就有了，一定是一个官方的规定。不过上海的高考和别的地方不一样，也有可能你们没有和全国高考用同样的规定。



kareno999 said:


> Sorry DavidCornell, but I have to point out that the rumor - 的&地can be used interchangeably - has never be confirmed by any national institution, although it have been flying around for years. Unless you can provide any written document which endorses the interchangeability of 的&地, I'd suggest that you stop asserting your own reliability. (Oops, I'm getting a little bit serious here)


----------



## DavidCornell

我google了一下，找到了这个官方文件：

《中学教学语法系统提要(试用)》则 提倡不分：“过去曾经不分，并未引起混乱，而通行分写办法在教学上不无困难，事实上也确有疑难情况，所以根据许多教师的建议，提倡不分。但是目前报刊文章 和许多著作中大都是分写的，因此不作硬性规定，愿意分写的尽管分写，只要分得对就行。”





kareno999 said:


> Sorry DavidCornell, but I have to point out that the rumor - 的&地can be used interchangeably - has never be confirmed by any national institution, although it have been flying around for years. Unless you can provide any written document which endorses the interchangeability of 的&地, I'd suggest that you stop asserting your own reliability. (Oops, I'm getting a little bit serious here)


----------



## DavidCornell

在中国的语文教学领域，有过两个语法体系：

1954年产生的《暂拟汉语教学语法系统》（简称《暂拟系统》），这个系统曾经统治了中学汉语教学30年，有些教师也是一直这么学、这么教的。

目前中学语文教学采用的是人民教育出版社中学语文室1984年制订的《中学教学语法系统提要（试用）》

所以，现在的中国语文教育里面，官方的说法是可以不分这两个“de”, 但是如果你想分，完全可以，但是要分得对。

所以，我的这个说法不是所谓的谣言，是由确凿的根据的！


----------



## DavidCornell

I'll translate what I wrote about in Chinese into English for those who can't read Chinese characters here.

There have been two grammar systems in the Chinese language education system in Mainland China. 

One was adopted in 1954 as the grammar used in secondary education (including junior and senior high schools in Mainland China). This grammar was used for 30 years until 1984. In this grammar, there is a distinction between the two de's.

The current grammar system in use in secondary education in Mainland China was adopted in 1984. It was proposed by the People's Education Press, which is in charge of textbooks for all compulsive education levels including the elementary and secondary schools. In this grammar, grammarians and schoolteachers in Mainland China agree that the distinction between the two de's is actually stipulative, and is always confusing to students since there is no phonological difference between the two and the grammatical functions of attributive and adverbial are quite subtle in Chinese, and hard to teach. Therefore they propose that the two de's be collapsed into one.

In current usage, you can collapse these tow de's. It is recognized as good grammar. But if you want to distinguish these two de's, it is absolutely welcome as long as you can use them correctly, because the problem in the past was that people couldn't use them correctly. So in fact if you can use them correctly, that is a way of showing that you have good grammar skills.


----------



## DavidCornell

如果谁能找到这文章，里面应该说得很清楚。 *


文章提要：

结构助词"的"与"地"的分合问题*

*                     Structural Particle"地"Should Be Replaced by"的"*

                 <<南昌大学学报（人文社会科学版）                 >>2004年06期徐阳春 

                结 构助词"的"与"地"可以统一写作"的",因为

1)二者在句法和语义上具有同一性;

(2)二者的划分是人为的,而且一直有混用现象;统一写作"的"在 语境中不会出现歧义,不会影响阅读和理解速度;

(3)有方言和历史的印证;

(4)结构助词"的"、"地"与标记所释外语单词的词性时所用的"的外"、"地 外"不是一回事,后者用法不能进入汉语结构系统.


----------



## DavidCornell

so can I assert my reliability now? lol (well, actually I have never asserted my reliability. you just read what you wanted to hear.)



kareno999 said:


> Sorry DavidCornell, but I have to point out that the rumor - 的&地can be used interchangeably - has never be confirmed by any national institution, although it have been flying around for years. Unless you can provide any written document which endorses the interchangeability of 的&地, I'd suggest that you stop asserting your own reliability. (Oops, I'm getting a little bit serious here)


----------



## kareno999

DavidCornell said:


> 如果谁能找到这文章，里面应该说得很清楚。
> 
> 
> *文章提要：*
> 
> *结构助词"的"与"地"的分合问题*
> 
> *Structural Particle"地"Should Be Replaced by"的"*
> 
> <<南昌大学学报（人文社会科学版） >>2004年06期徐阳春
> 
> 结 构助词"的"与"地"可以统一写作"的",因为
> 
> 1)二者在句法和语义上具有同一性;
> 
> (2)二者的划分是人为的,而且一直有混用现象;统一写作"的"在 语境中不会出现歧义,不会影响阅读和理解速度;
> 
> (3)有方言和历史的印证;
> 
> (4)结构助词"的"、"地"与标记所释外语单词的词性时所用的"的外"、"地 外"不是一回事,后者用法不能进入汉语结构系统.


作为一篇学术论文，这篇文章只能代表作者个人的意见。
而且根据你所列的几点，作者并没有说现在已经将“的”、“地”混用了。
正是因为实际上并未混用，或者说尚未混用，所以作者才提出这个建议的，不是吗？
如果按照你所说，官方已经承认两者可以通用，或者“的”“地”可以混用已成学术界共识，那么发表这篇文章有什么意义？
实事上，你可以找到很多文章反对二者的混用。
所以这篇文章说明不了任何问题。


----------



## kareno999

DavidCornell said:


> But the Chinese language authority has said that 的 and 地 can be collapsed into just 的 no matter what grammatical position.


 


DavidCornell said:


> 我google了一下，找到了这个官方文件：
> 
> 《中学教学语法系统提要(试用)》则 提倡不分：“过去曾经不分，并未引起混乱，而通行分写办法在教学上不无困难，事实上也确有疑难情况，所以根据许多教师的建议，提倡不分。但是目前报刊文章 和许多著作中大都是分写的，因此不作硬性规定，愿意分写的尽管分写，只要分得对就行。”


OK, I was wrong by saying that this is a rumor. Sorry for that.
Indeed, "地" can be replaced by "的" in some circumstances according to the document (not the other way around). You get my credit for that.

Personally, I really doubt the authority of this document which remains just a reference book for middle school teachers for all these years. Unlike a dictionary, it places no restrictions on the usage of the whole society and the habit if distinguishing "的" and "地" still prevails in actual usage. Correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## DavidCornell

You are not wrong, but it is just that you were educated in the previous system, i.e. the first grammar system adopted in 1954. Many people like you don't like to let go of the beautiful distinction between these words. As I have also cited, many secondary school teachers don't like the new grammar system either, and they tend to tell their students that although it is ok not to distinguish these two words now officially, they are still strongly advised to make this distinction, since it is good grammar and a sign of good education and writing skills. To some extent, I don't object to this view. Personally, I would distinguish these two words too. But sometimes I don't care if the first character that shows up is 的 on my computer when I type in the pinyin. 

The second grammar system is the one used in current secondary education. Young students are educated that way. Probably there will be more people who don't distinguish these two words. 

Although it is not like a law, the grammar system is still what students learn at school. If you consider the fact that there is no distinction in speech, i.e. the pronunciations, then students get the idea of the distinction from education. You got that idea from your education. Students now get their idea from their education now.
If they learn that they don't have to distinguish, then they probably won't.

When I posted my first few posts, I didn't say that you must use 的 only. What I said is that you CAN just use 的. As to which option you like, it's totally a personal choice.

What I also pointed out is that in many overseas Chinese courses, they do not distinguish these two words.





kareno999 said:


> OK, I was wrong by saying that this is a rumor. Sorry for that.
> Indeed, "地" can be replaced by "的" in some circumstances according to the document (not the other way around). You get my credit for that.
> 
> Personally, I really doubt the authority of this document which remains just a reference book for middle school teachers for all these years. Unlike a dictionary, it places no restrictions on the usage of the whole society and the habit if distinguishing "的" and "地" still prevails in actual usage. Correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## kareno999

DavidCornell said:


> You are not wrong, but it is just that you were educated in the previous system, i.e. the first grammar system adopted in 1954. Many people like you don't like to let go of the beautiful distinction between these words. As I have also cited, many secondary school teachers don't like the new grammar system either, and they tend to tell their students that although it is ok not to distinguish these two words now officially, they are still strongly advised to make this distinction, since it is good grammar and a sign of good education and writing skills. To some extent, I don't object to this view. Personally, I would distinguish these two words too. But sometimes I don't care if the first character that shows up is 的 on my computer when I type in the pinyin.
> 
> The second grammar system is the one used in current secondary education. Young students are educated that way. Probably there will be more people who don't distinguish these two words.
> 
> Although it is not like a law, the grammar system is still what students learn at school. If you consider the fact that there is no distinction in speech, i.e. the pronunciations, then students get the idea of the distinction from education. You got that idea from your education. Students now get their idea from their education now.
> If they learn that they don't have to distinguish, then they probably won't.
> 
> When I posted my first few posts, I didn't say that you must use 的 only. What I said is that you CAN just use 的. As to which option you like, it's totally a personal choice.
> 
> What I also pointed out is that in many overseas Chinese courses, they do not distinguish these two words.


I was born approximately the same time this new document was released, but I was never taught this way and nor did my friends no matter where they come from.
Actually when I was preparing the College Entrance Exam, my Chinese teacher emphasized that "的""地""得"should be disguished correctly and that they can be used interchangebaly was a rumor. This is how I got the picture.


----------



## Zulis

kareno999 said:


> I was born approximately the same time this new document was released, but I was never taught this way and nor did my friends no matter where they come from.
> Actually when I was preparing the College Entrance Exam, my Chinese teacher emphasized that "的""地""得"should be disguished correctly and that they can be used interchangebaly was a rumor. This is how I got the picture.



My Chinese teacher too, so I'd say we'd better distinguish them than not, "的""地""得" still have their differences.


----------



## xiaolijie

Zulis said:


> ...so I'd say we'd better distinguish them than not, "的""地""得" still have their differences.


By logics you're right but not all Chinese speakers can analyze the differences (although the majority of them can use these particles correctly). Maintaining the 3 "de's" in their written forms does in fact make it looks as if too many Chinese cannot write their language properly.


----------



## DavidCornell

The distinction between 的 and 地  might be a fake distinction based upon knowledge of English grammar. It does not reflect any truth in Chinese grammar. That is why so many Chinese students can't distinguish them. It is indeed not necessary to make such a big fuss over which 的/地 is correct. If some teachers insist they be distinguished, ok. But it is not necessary.

On the other hand, 得 has to be distinguished, as I have pointed out , there is phonological evidence for that. 得　is pronounced as de2, while the other two cannot be pronounced as de2 in emphatic contexts.


----------



## LaCosmopolitana

Hello, can anybody help:

 About "de" 的.
 What is the rule of "de" between and adjective that compliments the noun?
When does one use ex.: piaoliang 漂亮 de 的+ "noun"? 
 When do we need "de" and when don't we need to add it？

Thank you,
LaCosmopolitana


----------



## J.F. de TROYES

Using  的 depends on how many syllables the adjective and the noun are composed of . My grammar says it must be used just when the adjective is disyllabic and the noun is monosyllabic. So it is not compulsory in a phrase like : 漂 亮 衣 服  piǎo  
liàng yī fu ( beautiful clothes ) , unlike  漂 亮 的 手  piǎo liàng de shǒu ( beautiful hands ). In other cases you have the choice , the particle being used to avoid confusion. 
However it would be interesting to read natives' opinion .


----------



## IWantToLearnFrench

J.F. de TROYES said:


> Using 的 depends on how many syllables the adjective and the noun are composed of . My grammar says it must be used just when the adjective is disyllabic and the noun is monosyllabic. So it is not compulsory in a phrase like : 漂 亮 衣 服 piǎo
> liàng yī fu ( beautiful clothes ) , unlike 漂 亮 的 手 piǎo liàng de shǒu ( beautiful hands ). In other cases you have the choice , the particle being used to avoid confusion.
> However it would be interesting to read natives' opinion .


 
Hi,

Actually, Mandarin is my "langue maternelle", but all my life, I've never heard of such a theory. 

Words such as 的，得，地 are actually know as 助词, which actually is a type of 虚词(do not worry, you'll be learning this sooner or later  ), which actually means words that do not have a VERY significant meaning, especially 助词, it solely serves to making the sentence sound smoother. 

Let me state an example:
那动听音乐，真让人陶醉其中。
那动听的音乐，真让人陶醉其中。 
(Literal translation: That beautiful music, makes people get enchanted in it.)

However, I do think that the latter is more accurate, as there is the "De" in it. 

For example again:
那件美丽衣服，正是我想买的。 (less accurate)
那件美丽的衣服，正是我想买的。 (more accurate)
(That beautiful outfit, is exactly the one that I intend to buy.)

Do note that the "de" at the back of the sentence, is just part of the structure, it doesn't really serve any significant purpose.)

Do note that the "de" at the back of both the sentence is actually part of the structure, in my opinion though, I think the "De" emphasizes on the "outfit" alone and not "beautiful outfit", but I bet other native speakers might tell you more accurately what it actually serves as. 

I do think that this might be a tad confusing to you, because as far as I know, you don't use this similar word, like "的", in French. Perhaps, ironically, the "de" in French might serve the similar purpose. (i don't know for sure.  )

I do want to know what the other native speakers, or Mandarin experts think of this opinion of mine.


----------



## IWantToLearnFrench

DavidCornell said:


> The distinction between 的 and 地 might be a fake distinction based upon knowledge of English grammar. It does not reflect any truth in Chinese grammar. That is why so many Chinese students can't distinguish them. It is indeed not necessary to make such a big fuss over which 的/地 is correct. If some teachers insist they be distinguished, ok. But it is not necessary.
> 
> On the other hand, 得 has to be distinguished, as I have pointed out , there is phonological evidence for that. 得　is pronounced as de2, while the other two cannot be pronounced as de2 in emphatic contexts.


 
Hi, 
My teacher does not actually insist us on being too particular with distinguishing between the two, but in my opinion though,

adjective + 地 + verb.

adjective + 的 + noun.

I've seen cases like
adjective + 的 + verb, which I think may be acceptable. (the 地 and 的 may be interchangeble in this case)

HOWEVER: adjective + 的 + noun. (the 的 here, CANNOT be replaced by 地).

As far as I know, adjective + 地 + noun, is NEVER acceptable.


----------

