More thoughts on 得
A linguist muses.
My hypothesis didn't survive after all, but that's the point of research – hypothesis, testing, new facts, revised hypothesis etc.
Basically, 得 is a conjunction which means – roughly – "as a consequence; consequently; so; thus". 得 always follows a verb so that if the main verb is transitive, the verb is repeated after the dO. Thus we have such sentences as
When the stative verb is the main verb, should it still be read as a consequential structure? Here I think Po-Ching and Rimmington (1997:77) are being confusing. They distinguish complements of manner from adverbials of manner, even although the constructions are identical (viz. [[Main clause] 得 [Subordinate clause]]). They say
Another question I have is whether sentences such as 他很快得跑着 originally meant that the action of the 得-clause was a consequence of some property of the subject. He's fast; that's why he's running. Since then, there's been a shift in sense, but the syntactic structure remains the same. Is something getting lost in translation when 他很快得跑着 is translated as the somewhat bland "He ran very fast"?
Meanwhile, T'ung and Pollard (1982:188) say
Basically, 得 is a conjunction which means – roughly – "as a consequence; consequently; so; thus". 得 always follows a verb so that if the main verb is transitive, the verb is repeated after the dO. Thus we have such sentences as
他跑得直喘气 (tā pǎo de zhí chuǎnqì) "He was running; as a consequence he was out of breath."The translations are meant to highlight the structure rather than be stunning examples of the translator's art. The first sentence has dynamic verbs in both clauses and the same subject. The clauses in the second sentence each have a their own subject (他 in the first and 脚 in the second). The third exemplifies the repetition of a transitive verb (...打字打...) before 得. It also illustrates that when a stative verb is used in the 得-clause it's actually imparting information learnt by an observer; in this case, the subject of the sentence is a fast typist.
他走得脚都软了 (tā zǒu de jiǎo dōu ruǎn le) "He was walking; consequently his legs went weak."
他打字打得很快 (tā dǎzì dǎ de hěn kuài) "He's typing; as a consequence we can see he's fast."
When the stative verb is the main verb, should it still be read as a consequential structure? Here I think Po-Ching and Rimmington (1997:77) are being confusing. They distinguish complements of manner from adverbials of manner, even although the constructions are identical (viz. [[Main clause] 得 [Subordinate clause]]). They say
The difference between an adverbial of manner and a complement of manner ... is that the adverbial is concerned mainly with the 'demeanour', 'intention', etc., of the subject, while the complement is more concerned with the manner and result of the verb as observed by a third party.The problem I'm having is that PC and R are analysing adverbials of manner as if to say that the structure of such sentences is [[S [stative verb得]] main verb]]. The subject of 他很快得跑着 (tā hěn kuài de pǎozhe) "He ran very fast" would be 他很快得, which is completely at odds with other sentences that use 得-clauses. In fact, this is why I was confused about the structure of 得-clauses in the first place. I wonder whether 他很快得跑着 might also be translated as "He's fast, as you can see from his running".
Another question I have is whether sentences such as 他很快得跑着 originally meant that the action of the 得-clause was a consequence of some property of the subject. He's fast; that's why he's running. Since then, there's been a shift in sense, but the syntactic structure remains the same. Is something getting lost in translation when 他很快得跑着 is translated as the somewhat bland "He ran very fast"?
Meanwhile, T'ung and Pollard (1982:188) say
Note that the de in this construction is not the subordinating marker de (the character is different).I'll just remind you. Their book is in pinyin throughout. Ah, Clarity, where is thy sting?
Comments
Now, about these books: Why the hell do they not have characters? What is this pinyin-only rubbish? Now, I have heard of a variety of attempts at romanising or otherwise phoneticising or phonemecising or something Chinese, but this trouble you're having with the 'de's is a perfect example of why characters are better, even if they are more trouble to learn.
(although characters have their own set of problems along similar lines to this)
And the explanations:
他跑得直喘气 (tā pǎo de zhí chuǎnqì) "He was running; as a consequence he was out of breath."
Correct.
他打字打得很快 (tā dǎzì dǎ de hěn kuài) "He's typing; as a consequence we can see he's fast."
No. Simply: He is typing very fast.
To add to the confusion, both these 'meanings' of de are listed in the same entry in my dictionary. Simply put, the dazidade example is an adverbial going backwards. Or, as she who edits put it: dazidade hen kuai is implementation: He was typing, typing very fast. The paodezhichuanqi example is the 'consequence' they're talking about it.
This is not making things any clearer, is it?
他打字打得很快 (tā dǎzì dǎ de hěn kuài) "He's typing; as a consequence we can see he's fast."
That was a hypothetical translation of mine. PC and R translate the sentence as "S/he types very fast". I was trying to fit it into the general pattern. They say (p. 77) "the complement is more concerned with the manner and result of the verb as observed by a third party." I was getting my 得 (consequence) mixed up with my 得 (manner).
I'm back to thinking that it matters whether the verb is dynamic or stative (i.e., an adjective) and whether it occurs before or after 得.
Now that you've made the observation about the difference between 他跑得直喘气 and 他打字打得很快 I'm almost back to where I started with the latter. The first part is almost like a clause functioning as a noun-like thing with 很快 being a mere adjectival predicate.
So we can have
a. [verb]得[verb]
b. [adj]得[verb]
c. [verb]得[adj]
d. [adj]得[adj] (??)
where adj is any stative verb such as 快 and its attendant baggage.
Type (a.) consequence
Type (b.) manner/consequence (e.g. manner in 他很快得跑着; consequence in 他冷得发抖了)
Type (c.) manner.
Type (d.) Er?
You right. None of this is making things clearer. I think I'm a step closer to a better understanding. Perhaps.
很快地跑着，NOT 很快得跑着
In this case, as in the last thread, it's 地 funtioning like -ly. So:
[adj] -ly/地 [verb]
Now, my dictionary lists three usages for 得. The first two are irrelevant to this case, but the third is exactly the problem you're having here:
3) (used to link a verb or n adjective to a complement which describes the manner or degree):
写得非常好 very well written/唱得不好 not sing well/冷得打哆嗦 shiver with cold/笑得肚子痛 laugh till one's sides split/好得很 very good/他吵得我工作不下去 he made so much noise that I couldn't go on working.
Hmmm.... Those adjective examples are a little confusing. Check the 新华字典 and it gives the same definition, but the only adjective example is 香得很 very delicious.
So:
Type A: Consequence. Absolutely.
Type B: I think this is unnecessary and confusing.
Type C: Manner/implementation. Absolutely.
Type D: Er? indeed.
Type E: [adj] 得 [what kind of a word is 很?]
So now I think the confusion is not really de/de/de/de/de (each de has multiple usages) but the difference between stative verbs and adjectives. It seems there may not be a difference in your world. Clearly, from the dictionary examples, 冷，好，香 are stative verbs, therefore they can take 得. But, bearing in mind my editor half is not hear to correct me, 他很慢得跑 and 他很快得跑着 seem wrong, I'm sure they should have 地, with 很慢地 and 很快地 being adverbs.
Hmmm... My very amateurish explanations are not helping much, are they?
Well, here's how I see 他很慢得跑 and 他很快得跑着:
[subject][adv][verb]
So, he is neither slow nor fast, he is running slowly or fast.
But 冷得打哆嗦 is:
[stative verb]得[consequence]
So, he is so cold he is shivering.
Anyway, I see 得 as introducing a kind of post-verb adverb of manner or consequence.
So far the only thing I'm achieving is to make already muddy waters still muddier. Sorry.
Must go teach now. More confusion later.
Oh, and before I start, please excuse the amateurish massacring of linguistic terminology.
Both are [ahem] adverbial markers. 地 marks an adverb that precedes a verb; 得 marks an adverb that follows a verb.
The sentence 他很快得跑着 is wrong because the verb is not 快; it is 跑. 他很快地跑着 is correct because 很快地 is the adverb that modifies the verb 跑.
(着 also modifies the verb, but that is more about tense, as in "he is running" rather than "he runs". I guess you could call it a particle of conugation)
In 他跑得直喘气, 得 introduces an 'adverb of consequence': 得直喘气.
In 他打字打得很快, 得 introduces an 'adverb of manner/implementation': 得很快.
In 冷得打哆嗦, 冷 is a verb (even though most amateurs like me would assume it was an adjective) modified by the 'adverb of consequence' 得打哆嗦. If 冷得打哆嗦 were a sentence in its own right, then the subject must be implicit in the context and is probably the same for both clauses ((I) was so cold (I) was shivering) or the subject of the first clause is [The weather] or [it] (meaning the weather), and the subject of the second clause being the person referred to, and again implicit from the context.
In 他吵得我工作下不去 we have the same structure as above, except that the subjects of the two clauses are explicitly stated.
So, I would say 得 clauses have only two types:
Type 1: [verb]得[adverb of consequence], as in 他吵得我工作下不去.
Type 2: [verb]得[adverb of manner], as in 他打字打得很快.
Anyway, it might strike you as being a bunch of absolute bullshit dreamed up by an amateur who should just shut up, eat his sandwich and drink his baijiu, but that is the clearest explanation I can think of and it is the hypothesis that helped me understand the way these pain in the arse particles are used.
I still think you need to replace your books.
I think you're right to reduce the 得 construction to two types because this would seem to capture grammatical generalisations that a finer analysis completely misses.