I think the earth is not suitable for you（早上朋友给我发的我问他什么意思他不说谁给翻译下啊）_百度知道以上内容摘取自《戴尔电脑公司电子商务模式与物流配送.pdf》，若想查看原文格式，请如果您觉得不放心或未尽人意，请复制链接到电脑端访问（同时支持支付宝和微信支付）。普通话真的是 SVO 语言吗？
My question was translated from English through Google Translate, so there might be some translation error. My original question: "Is Mandarin really a SVO language?"I'm currently learning Mandarin but the word order seems to be different from typical SVO languages like English. For example, "把书本拿给我" (give me the books) - SVO should be "拿书本给我""从家里出去" (leaving from the house) -
How about "出去从家里""他在家里睡觉" (He sleeps at home) - Why is it not "他睡觉在家里"A lot of these sentences in Mandarin put the verb at the end after the object, instead of putting it before the object.我正在学习普通话。普通话中的语序似乎与其它典型的主谓宾语言不同，例如英语。例如，「把书本拿给我」 (give me the books) - 按主谓宾应该是「拿书本给我」「从家里出去」 (leaving from the house) - 如果说「出去从家里」呢「他在家里睡觉」 (He sleeps at home) - 为什么不是「他睡觉在家里」普通话中很多这样的句子都是将谓语放在宾语之后，而不是放在宾语之前。
Basically you are mixing up the ba/bei structure and the unmarked order of Standard Chinese language. That is a common problem, even for a beginner syntactician who has little or limited knowledge of Standard C so that is not your fault, and just take it easy. But your problem is that you cannot differentiate object and PP (prepositional phrase); that will be a horrible problem. I would like to provide a somehow up-to-date summary of that issue - although basically my syntactic knowledge is limited to P&P system. For Chinese version, please refer to the second half of that answer, which is a full translation of my writing. Following is a general, introductory session about the word order of C for those who are only interested in syntactic theories, that part should be enough. The most common, unmarked order of Chinese language, including both Standard Chinese and Archaic Chinese, is SVO; that is a historical issue I would like to address to before we move to the analysis of Standard Chinese. Once there was an argument about the SVO or SOV order of Archaic Chinese (See Li and Thompson, 1974), while both the authors hold the opinion that Archaic Chinese should be in SOV order (since quite a lot of Sino-Tibetan languages are now in SOV order). Little evidence, however, is discover most of the literary records of Archaic Chinese, especially the pre-Qin documents, demonstrate the features of SVO language rather than SOV. Surely Archaic Chinese has some structures that follow SOV order (if you can read Chinese, or have a reliable native-speaker as your interpreter, you can refer to that article written by me: ; if not, just give me a message and I will try my best), but all the examples are not fully "unmarked". For example, an unmarked sentence favours nouns as its subject and direct object, and no additional particle should be present in the sentence, but those sentences with SOV either include a particular particle that triggers the SOV structure, or contain a pronoun as its direct object. For a typical unmarked sentence, such as “孟子(S)见(V)梁惠王(O)” (Literal translation following the original word order: Mencius met (or visited) King Hui of Liang), you see both the subject and the object are nouns (proper names), and the order is definitely SVO. The feature of SVO has been inherited by Middle Chinese, and then Standard Chinese today. As for Standard Chinese, an unmarked sentence, like “我今天吃了个苹果” (Literal translation following the original word order: I today ate an apple), is also definitely SVO; even for those sentences containing a pronoun as its object, like “我揍了他” (Literal translation following the original word order: I punched him)，the word order is still SVO. Without the presence of any word like “把” (ba) and “被” (bei), without the movement of topic, the word order is always SVO; you can never find a sentence presenting an SOV order. That is one of the common view that is shared by syntacticians in Europe (Continental and UK); maybe those horrible Americans have some other ideas that I don't know. So that argument answers the question in the title: yes, Standard Chinese is an SVO language. So how can we interpret the cases given by the questioner in that way? Before I go further in the field of Chinese, I would like to stray a bit and talk about another language: German. German main clauses demonstrate a variety of word orders, including SVO, VSO, OVS, SAOV, and even OASV if you pay enough attention to the language (A stands for auxiliary verb, like "did" and "have" in English). But most commonly it is known as V2-SOV that is, in a main clause, the verb will always be at the second position, while the verb will be at the end of the a subordinate clause. I mention the structure of German, mainly to point out that it is possible for a language to have a numerous number of word orders beside the world is not made up of English, which only allows a limited number of word orders. Let's move back to Chinese then. Example 1 in the question is a quite complicated one involving both double-object construction and the presence of ba; so it will take me longer time and more examples to illustrate the variations in Standard Chinese. Firstly I would like to discuss the double-object construction, which means the main verb is ditrasitive, has three theta-roles and requires three nouns (or nominal constructions) in a
the three nouns will be subject (S), direct object (DO) and indirect object (IO) respectively. For a typical ditrasitive verb, like “给” (give), the unmarked word order will be: (1) 他给了我一本书。 (Literal translation following the original word order: He gave me a book) - in the form of S-V-IO-DO. In that case, the word order of Standard Chinese is exactly same as that of English, which is a typical SVO language: he gave me a book. The construction of ditransitive verb is usually referred as VP- for those who are interested in how Chomsky and his fellows solve the problem of theta-role assignment of ditransitive structure, just type this word in Google and you will get piles of literature. Then we talk about the application of ba in the construction of transitive (NOT ditransitive) verb. The nature of ba is rather complicated an here I would like to follow the light verb assumption, in which the nature of ba is a bit similar (but NOT EQUAL) to auxiliary verb in G a light verb is a verb (of course), but its function is more like a particle which leads to the shift of structure within the sentence, e.g. focus, stress, and so on. For a typical transitive verb, like “吃” (eat), both unmarked and ba-construction sentence express the same meaning: (2) a. 我吃了一个苹果。 (Literal translation following the original word order: I ate an apple) - in the form of SVO.
b. 我把一个苹果吃了。(Literal translation following the original word order: I ba an apple ate) - in the form of S-ba-OV.
c. *我一个苹果吃了。(Literal translation following the original word order: *I an apple ate) - an asterisk indicates that the sentence is ungrammatica in the form of SOV. Both (2a) and (2b) are grammatical and acceptable (2c), a pure SOV order, sounds horrible unless some particular intonation is accompanied. We can see that the SOV order is possible only when ba is present.Then we put the two together and go to the example 1 in the question, which is a combination of double-object construction and ba-construction. For a ba-construction of (1), we can list a set for comparison: (3) a. 他给了我一本书。 (a replica of (1); Literal translation following the original word order: He gave me a book) - in the form of S-V-IO-DO.
b. 他把一本书给了我。(Literal translation following the original word order: He ba a book gave me) - in the form of S-ba-DO-V-IO.
c. #他给了一本书我。(Literal translation following the original word order: He gave a book me) - in the form of S-V-DO-IO; I mark it by the pound mark here because in some Chinese dialects, e.g. Cantonese, that structure is prefectly allowed, and I also see some Hong Kong friends using it in their variation of Standard C I would like to ignore it here because it is about Standard Chinese, but the sentence is not that "standard".
d. *他把我给了一本书。(Literal translation following the original word order: He ba me gave a book) - in the form of S-ba-IO-V-DO. For other possible structures, most of them are ungrammatical and unacceptabl that includes all the structures in which V is at the very end of a sentence, including but not limited to S-IO-DO-V and S-ba-DO-IO-V. There should be at least one component after the main verb of the sentence for
for Standard Chinese, it can never be the case in double-object construction that a sentence is a pure SOV - that is rather convincing to show that the structure of DO-V in both transitive and ditransitive sentences is a triggered movement, rather than based-generated. For a typical SOV language, unless the presence of extraposed structure (which is too complicated for non-syntacticians), all objects should be in front of the main verb. At the same time, it is grammatical for an SOV language, like Japanese and German, to exchange the position between IO and DO - that is called "scrambling". Scrambling, as a widely-present feature among OV languages, is impossible in Standard C that can be another piece of suggestion, although the logic is not fully convincing. Sad story. As for the remaining two examples, "从家里出去" (from home go out) and "在家里睡觉" (at home sleep), other respondents have answered that they belong to the problem of adverbial propositional phrase (PP) rather than object. In Archiac Chinese, the position of PP related to main verb is rather flexible (or in Chomskyan terminology, a "free parameter"), but in Standard Chinese, a PP attaching to VP is more frequently a pre-verbial one. Definitely that is interesting - so if you think the following content may be beyond your reach (which, actually, is the case for some of my classmates in a linguistic programme), just skip it and go to the end. Contemporary syntactic theories, especially the Chomskyan one, assume that a sentence is in a tree strucuture, while the large tree contains a series of small trees, which equals to phrases. Foe every phrase, there is a head (the most important word), a complement which is to provide the essential part of the rest of the phrase, and a specifier which is more or less like a modifier. For a VP including a transitive verb, the verb itself is the head, the object is its complement, while the adverbial (e.g. PP) is its specifier. In Standard Chinese, most of the time, the specifier is in front of the head, and that structure is less flexible. For instance, an NP (nominal phrase) is in the form of AP-N, that is why we say "美丽的|姑娘" (beautiful girl) rather than "姑娘|美丽的" (girl beautiful); that is the same in the construction of VP, so we put the PP in front of VP, and say "从家里出去" rather than "出去从家里", or "在晚上|看电视" (in the evening watch TV) rather than "看电视|在晚上" (watch TV in the evening). Since we are talking about specifier but not complement when we discuss the PP-V construction in Chinese, that structure can never be used to argue for the SOV structure. The example "在晚上|看电视" (in the evening watch TV, in the form of PP-V-O), on the contrary, obviously presents that Standard Chinese is a VO language. I will not further extend my argument into an analysis of Greenberg's Linguistic Universals, in which he suggests that a VO language is always head-complement (while Chinese is not); that will be beyond the reach of 99% members , and may even earn me a page in Linguistic Inquiry. I hope that it is clear enough for you to know why Standard Chinese is an SVO language rather than an SOV one: basically what you regard as OV structure is not fully qualified. Next time try some more delicate examples and you are always welcome to ask questions here. Enjoy learning Chinese!————中文版————总的来说，你把“把”/“被”结构和现代汉语（普通话）的无语法标记的语序（常规语序）搞混了。这个问题很常见，即使对于一个不了解或不太了解现代汉语的句法学初心者也是如此；这不是你的问题，所以放轻松啦。但是，你的问题在于你没区分开宾语和介词短语作状语；这问题可就大了。尽管我的句法学知识只有Principle and Parameter那么多，但我还是在这里想写一个至今为止有关于汉语语序问题的总结。这里就是中文部分了，欢迎阅读。以下是一个有关汉语语序的笼统的介绍；如果有人只关心句法学理论问题的话，看完这里就足够了，后面全是案例分析。汉语里最常见的、没有任何语法标记的语序，包括现代汉语和古汉语（特别是先秦时期），都是SVO顺序的；在我们分析现代汉语的结构之前，先来谈谈这个历史问题。曾经学界有争论古汉语到底是SVO还是SOV语序的，参见Li and Thompson, 1974，这二位认为古汉语应该是SOV语序的（因为汉藏语系有其他语言一直保留着SOV语序）。不过就这个论点而言其实没什么论据；许多古汉语的文献记录，特别是先秦文献，都显示古汉语有SVO的特征，而并非是SOV的。当然，古汉语的确有SOV语序的现象（参见我过去的专栏：），但是所有这些案例都不算是“常规语序”。比如说，无标记的句子通常要求它的主语和直接宾语都是名词，同时句子里不能有任何小品词出现；但是表现出SOV语序的句子，要不就是有能够引出SOV语序的小品词，要不就是以代词作为它的直接宾语。在一句典型的无标记句子里，比如“孟子见梁惠王”，你能发现它的主语和宾语都是名词（专有名词），而它的语序显然是SVO。其后，中古汉语也继承了SVO的语序，然后是古白话，然后就是今天的现代汉语（新白话）。就现代汉语而言，一个无标记的句子，比如“我今天吃了个苹果”，也显然是SVO的；即使句子中以代词作为直接宾语，比如“我揍了他”，也还是SVO语序的。如果句子里没有“把”和“被”等词的出现，也没有话题的移动（参见），你根本找不到一个表现为SOV语序的句子。这个看法是欧洲大陆及英国句法学家们共享的一个观点；也许那些糟糕的美国句法学家有其他想法，不过我不是很清楚。这部分从理论上回答了标题里提出的问题：是的，普通话真的是SVO语言。那么我们要怎么解释题主在题目里所给出的案例呢？在我继续深入讨论汉语之前，我先跑一下题，讨论一下另外一种语言：德语。如果你认真注意的话，德语的主句可以出现一系列各种各样的语序，包括SVO、VSO、OVS、SAOV，甚至OASV（A指的是助动词，就像英语里的“did”和“have”）。不过对于大多数句法学家来说，德语是一种V2-SOV语言；在主句里，变形的动词（包括助动词）一直都在句子的第二位，而在从句里动词将出现在句尾。我提到德语的结构，主要是为了说明，一种语言除了它的默认语序之外，可以有各种各样的语序；世界可不是由英语那种只允许几种语序存在的语言构成的。那我们继续说汉语吧。问题中的例一是个很复杂的情况，它同时包括了双宾语结构和“把”的出现；所以我可能需要更长时间和更多栗子来解释现代汉语的不同语序变体。首先是双宾语结构，也就是说主动词是个双及物动词，有三个题元角色，在一个合乎语法的句子里需要三个名词（或名词性成分）；这三个名词分别是主语（S）、直接宾语（DO）和间接宾语（IO）。对于一个典型的双及物动词来说——就说“给”吧——无标记的语序是这样的：(1) 他给了我一本书。——语序为S-V-IO-DO。在这个例子里，现代汉语的语序和英语的语序“he gave me a book”是一模一样的，而英语正是一种典型的SVO语言。双宾语结构通常被称为VP-shell，如果有人想知道乔姆斯基他们流派是如何解决双宾语结构的题元角色分配的，直接把这个名词打到谷歌里，就能找到一堆文献。然后我们来说说“把”这个字在及物动词（而不是双及物动词）结构里的应用。“把”的性质非常复杂，甚至可以说争论不断；在这里，我采取“轻动词”的假设，这样“把”的性质就有点像（但绝不等同于）德语里的助动词；轻动词是一种动词（废话），但它的功能更像是句子里的小品词，在句子内部转换结构，比如添加主题、重点等等。对于一个典型的及物动词，比如“吃”来说，无标记句子和“把”字句都表达了同一个意思：(2) a. 我吃了一个苹果。——语序为SVO。
b. 我把一个苹果吃了。——语序为S-ba-OV.
c. *我一个苹果吃了。——星号指这个句子对母语者来说不合乎语法；语序为SOV。 (2a)和(2b)都合乎语法，能被母语者接受；(2c)是个纯粹的SOV语序，除非在句子上有特别的重音或者语调，否则听起来非常糟心。我们可以发现，在这里，只有在“把”出现的时候，SOV语序才能够成立。然后，我们把这两部分合起来，来分析问题中的例一，也就是双宾语结构和“把”字句的合体。对于(1)的把字句结构，我们可以举一系列栗子来进行比较：(3) a. 他给了我一本书。——重复(1)，语序为S-V-IO-DO。
b. 他把一本书给了我。——语序为S-ba-DO-V-IO。
c. #他给了一本书我。——语序为S-V-DO-IO；我用井号（半确认）来标记，是因为在一些汉语方言变体里（比如粤语里），这个结构“佢俾一本书我”完全没问题，我也发现一些香港的朋友在说普通话的时候会这么讲；但是我在这里想忽略这个问题，因为我们在讨论现代汉语，而这个句子并没有那么“标准”。
d. *他把我给了一本书。——语序为S-ba-IO-V-DO。至于其他可能的结构排列，大多数都是不合乎语法、母语者无法接受的；这其中包括了所有动词在句子最末的结构，包括但不限于S-IO-DO-V和S-ba-DO-IO-V。主动词后需要至少有一个成分才能合乎汉语语法；对于现代汉语来说，双宾语结构里永远不可能出现纯粹的SOV句子——这有力地说明了一点：在单宾语和双宾语“把”字句里，DO-V的语序是个被某些因素引发的移动，而并不是原初形成的。（而IO-V是不可能形成的，见(3d)。）对于典型的SOV语言来说，除非出现了extraposed结构（这个问题对于非句法学家来说太复杂了），否则所有的宾语，不管是直接还是间接宾语，都要出现在主动词之前。同时，对于日语和德语这样的SOV语言来说，IO和DO之间位置的交换是毫无问题的——这个现象叫做“乱序”。乱序是一种在OV语言里普遍出现的现象，但是在现代汉语里却不存在；这也可以作为汉语不是OV语言的暗示之一，虽然从逻辑上而言并不是那么理据服。真是个悲伤的故事呢。至于剩下的两个例子——“从家里出去”和“在家里睡觉”——其他答主已经回答了，它们属于副词性介词短语的问题，而不是宾语的问题。在古汉语里，以主动词为参照系，介词短语的位置是相当随意的（或者用乔派术语的话说，这是个自由参量），但是在现代汉语里，附着在动词短语的介词短语更多的会出现在动词前。这一现象相当有意思——而且解释起来相当困难；所以如果你觉得接下来的内容可能超出了你的理解范围（事实上，它甚至超出了我硕士班一些同学的理解范围），那就直接跳过这段看结尾好了。当前的句法理论，特别是乔派理论，假设一个句子是树状结构的，一棵大树里包括了一系列小树，每一棵小树相当于一个短语。对于每个短语来说都有一个head（最重要的词，决定了短语的性质）、一个complement（为短语剩下的部分提供必要的信息），还有一个specifier（或多或少是一个修饰结构）。对于一个包括了及物动词的动词短语来说，动词本身就是head，及物的宾语是它的complement，而状语（比如说一个介词短语）则是它的specifier。在现代汉语里，大多数时间，specifier都在head前面，而且这个结构并没有那么随意。比如说，一个名词短语的结构是形容词短语—名词，这就是为什么我们说的是“美丽的姑娘”而不是“姑娘美丽的”；对于动词短语的结构也完全一样，所以我们把介词短语放在动词之前，说的是“从家里出去”而不是“出去从家里”，是“在晚上看电视”而不是“看电视在晚上”。由于我们在讨论PP-V结构的时候说的是specifier而不是complement，所以，这个结构根本就不能用来证明SOV结构的问题。而“在晚上看电视”刚好还表明了现代汉语真的是一种VO语言。（有关specifier-head-complement的介绍，参见）这个回答大概到此为止，我不会再继续讨论分析Greenberg的Linguistic Universals假设。Greenberg认为，VO语言总是体现出head-complement顺序的（可惜汉语并不是）；如果要深入讨论的话，知乎上99%的人都会看不懂，而我如果写得好的话甚至还可以考虑去Linguistic Inquiry发一篇。我希望这个论述已经可以清楚地解释为什么汉语是一种SVO语言而不是SOV语言：基本上你认为是OV结构的那些结构都不能成为证据。下一次可以试试看一些更精细微妙的例子，欢迎你随时到这里来提问。祝学汉语愉快！特别感谢我们系主任，一辈子研究的VO/OV parameter没想到我今天能用得上。
I think Chinese Mandarin is a SVO language in most cases, though you can see some sentences in SOV order. BTW, I'm not a linguist. I have to say that your examples are not so appropriate. 1. 'Give me the books' could be "给我那些书" in Chinese. That is obviously in SVO order. 给 is a verb. 我 and 那些书 are objects. That sentense can also be translated as "把那些书给我", which is in SOV order. Not all sentenses can be in SOV order in Chinese. The bǎ construction is a
in the . In a bǎ construction, the
of a verb is placed after the 把 b? (or, in more formal writing, 將 jiāng), and the verb placed after the object, forming a
(SOV) sentence.
commonly analyze bǎ as a
construction, or as a .The bǎ construction may only be used in certain contexts, generally those in which the verb expresses "disposal" of, or action upon, the object. According to Wang Li, "the disposal form states how a person is handled, manipulated, how some or how an affair is conducted," or, in other words, "what happens to" the object. Therefore, it is generally used with verbs that are high in , a property that describes the effect a ve bǎ does not occur grammatically with verbs that express states or emotions, such as "love" and "miss," or with verbs that express activities that have no effect on the direct object, such as "sing" and "see."The direct object of a bǎ construction must meet certain requirements as well. It is usually definite, meaning that it is specific and unique (as in phrases beginning with the equivalent of this,that, these, or those). It may sometimes also be generic, such as "salt" in the sentence "She sometimes eats salt thinking it's sugar." The object of a bǎ construction is nearly always something that both the speaker and hearer know about and are aware of.from 2. "从家里出去" (leaving from the house) is not in SOV order. There is no OBJECT in that sentence. "从家里(from the house)" is the ADVERBIAL, not the object.3."他在家里睡觉" (He sleeps at home) is not in SOV order, either. 他 is the Subject. 在家里 is the adverbial. And 睡觉 is the verb (actually a verb-object phrase). The way we use adverbial in Chinese is really different from that in English, but I don't think that means the Chinese Mandarin is a SOV language.
我是来抖机灵的： —妈，我走了！—饭也不吃了你。(√)—也不吃饭了你。(√)—你饭也不吃了。(√)—饭你也不吃了。(√)—也不吃饭了你。(√)—你也不吃饭了。(×还有谁不吃饭？)
汉语肯定不是完全SVO
VO我甚至不觉得真正存在
因为可以认为是VO一体的
SO如果不产生歧义
那么汉语里SVO的位置就是任意的
比如最常见的《 你吃饭》三个字就是任意语序 只是说的时候中间多一些副词形容词之类的修饰语
My personal non-professional opinion: Yes, it is."把书本拿给我" is with bǎ construction. And bǎ construction (把字句) and bèi construction (被字句) are two exceptions in modern Mandarin that have some sort of SOV order (not that strict). It's like you say "Me das los libros" in Spanish, rather than "das me los libros". Actually, you can also say 拿给我书本 (SVO) in Mandarin, just like "dame los libros a mi" in Spanish.Therefore, if Spanish is considered to be SVO language, then Mandarin should be SVO language, too. The rest two examples shown above have nothing to do with Verb-Object order. The sentence "从家里出去" does not have object, in which 家 is actually an adverbial. Same thing with "他在家里睡觉". "在家里" in front of "睡觉" is the adverbial rather than object, and the object of the sentence is actually "觉" as a noun, whilst 睡 is the verb put before the object (VO).Therefore, if we solely talk about Verb-Object vs. Object-Verb order, I'll
say Mandarin is an SVO language. However, Mandarin does have different order in putting adverbial from English, which doesn't make it a non-SVO language.
In your second and third example, 从家里 and 在家里 are both "adverbial modifiers" （状语） ,not objects.
Even in the English phrases, they are not objects neither.And why adverbial modifiers are put in front of the verb?
No reason, this is a fundamental rule of Mandarin grammar, just like that in English you always put adjectives before nouns while in French you have to inverse the order.As for your first example, I think it's a special struture of emphasis.
介词 + 宾语 = 介宾短语。 介宾短语通常在句子中是状语。
The phrases(e.g.在家里，从家里)indicating the place or manner can be put either before or they should be treated as adverbial modifiers instead of objects.As to your first example, I believe it's a case of double object construction.
一进来我还以为是quora。。。。。果然外国人的待遇高惹
这个问题不能一概而论地讲，因为：1.首先关于普通话是什么类型的语言这一点历来就有SVO与SOV之争。TimothyLight，黄正德（Huang，1982），日本的鸟井克之均认为汉语是SVO。鸟井认为，汉语基本上是SVO结构，而一旦出现SOV，则通常是一种变格。而戴浩一（Tai，1973）明确提出，汉语是SOV语言。Li，C.N（李纳）和S.Thompson（
1974）在他们的论文中指出， 古汉语是SVO语言，而现代汉语则是SOV语言。事实上现代汉语确实在应用“把”字句的频率有大量的增长，故而SOV结构的句子也大量增长了。All in all,whether Mandarin is a SVO language or not doesn't have a final conclusion.In my opinion,C.N&S.T's view is interesting(they cut Chinese language),though their research method may not be so suitable .But I'm not professional,so that I can only offer some information for you.2.另外值得注意的是，提出SVO等几种语言类型的语言学家Joseph H. Greenberg在他的三十多种素材中并未将汉语纳入研究范围。实际上汉语自身的特点还有很多，甚至SSV这种结构也是很常见的，而这些Greenberg并未研究到。所以以这种标准来衡量汉语的时候，有必要对理论有一定的修正。----------------------------------------------------
已有帐号？
无法登录？
社交帐号登录