5

This Facebook post says:

The object behind “把” should be a specific person or thing. Example: “我把那本书买来了” cannot say “我把一本书买来了”.

Judging from context "behind" here should be "after". But even after this correction, I'm skeptical. I'm pretty sure these sentences I made up are all correct (please tell me if I'm wrong):

  • 妈妈把一本书放在桌子上。
  • 我把一个苹果切成了四块。
  • 我们把三辆汽车洗得干干净净。
  • 她把一颗星命名为“李蓓星”。

While I disagree with the given explanation, my 语感 nevertheless agrees that 我把一本书买来了 is somehow wrong. But why?

Question: Why is 我把一本书买来了 wrong?

Becky 李蓓
  • 16,291
  • 9
  • 49
  • 165
  • really a difficult question, 我把一本书买来了 is correct too, 我買來了一本書 is better – envs_h_gang_5 Jul 18 '22 at 11:23
  • Quite apart from definiteness, there’s also a requirement that the object of 把 must somehow be subsantially affected by the verb. The first three of your examples quite clearly do that: putting something on the table affects it (position), so does washing clean (state/appearance), and chopping into pieces most definitely does. The last one feels borderline to me (and therefore also less natural) – does naming a star really affect it? And the example in the book feels definitely wrong: buying something doesn’t affect it substantially. Even definite 我把那本书买来了 feels clumsy to me. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Jul 19 '22 at 07:53
  • diff "book" with "apple"! they are different. the point is why they are different. ---- too many reasons. like people who are in pursuit of truth or knowledge think highly of books and think certain books are much more valuable than others, so they diff certain books with the others. that's why they say "I bring the book" rather than "I bring a book" with "the book" implies certain book they've been talked about. and of cause, it's entirely possible that a person who has almost seen no book before to say that "I got a book" rather than "I got the book". you can say them all, and them are all r – Aaron Q Jul 19 '22 at 07:18

8 Answers8

6

My 语感 tends to agree with yours here. Grammatically, I would explain this in terms of degrees or types of definiteness. (What the fb post likely meant by 'specific', ie what is usually marked in English by THE.)

If our intuition isn't completely wide of the mark here, the numeral after the object of 把 is admissible because the presence of a final complement after the predicate confirms that the object of 把 is still meant in a definite sense.

Can a noun modified by 一 remain definite? (That is, can it be conceivably thought of as markable by THE, in English?) Arguably yes, if it's of the partitive type. In that case, the numeral does not mean "a" but "one (of THE few/many under consideration)".

For instance, I understand your first example sentence to mean not that your mother has randomly produced an apple out of the blue to put on the table, but rather that your mother has put one of the apples on the table. The focus is that ONE specific apple (of a larger bunch, whether concrete or abstract) ended up being put on the table; it's not that what's been put on the table is AN apple (as opposed to A book or something else). So 把一个苹果 is still a degree more definite than, say, 桌子上放着一个苹果 (where 一个苹果 would instead demand 'AN' in English translation, a marker of maximum indefiniteness).

Sanchuan
  • 762
  • 4
  • 12
  • "THE", in my answer, standing for any one of: the/ this/ that/ those/ these (which are equivalent to the definite use of 这个/那个 in the counterexample offered in the original fb post).
  • – Sanchuan Jul 18 '22 at 12:30
  • Glad to see native speakers' responses seem to corroborate my "definite but partitive" theory of why this construction is grammatical. All examples can be understood to mean "one (of THE abstract set of Xs available to the predicate)". Following your examples, that would be: one book (of all the books that the subject of the sentence would/could buy), one apple (of all the apples that the subject would/could move), and so forth. – Sanchuan Jul 19 '22 at 13:49
  • With regards to the disposability criterion, I would argue that's part of the semantics of 把 and is also partly inherent in its definiteness. At any rate it would not, on its own, explain why in certain contexts 把那 is grammatical and 把一 isn't. – Sanchuan Jul 19 '22 at 13:54