<p>XY</p>
<p>X很Y</p>
<p>X是Y的</p>
<p>All three of these are grammatically correct and equivalent in meaning (though the second is always preferred over the first and the third has an air of emphasis)</p>
<p>In a sentence such as &quot;这很新&quot;， 这 is a noun, 新 is a verb (roughly meaning &quot;to be new&quot;) and 很 is an adverb.</p>
<p>In &quot;这是新的&quot; 这 is still a noun while 新的 is also a noun (roughly meaning &quot;that which is new&quot;). If you want to understand why 新 is a verb and 新的 is a noun then I suggest you look up the term &quot;nominalization&quot;.</p>
<p>In this way, 这很新 loosely translates to &quot;this [is in the state of being new]&quot; while 这是新的 loosely translates to &quot;this is ([that which] is in the state of being new)&quot;</p>
<p>As an added note, it is by this  same grammar that we arrive at structures such as &quot;高的人&quot;. 高 is a verb meaning &quot;to be tall&quot; while 高的 is a noun meaning &quot;that which is tall&quot;. In the same way that mustard + stain = mustard stain, [that which is tall] + person = a person that is tall.</p>
<p>Words of this kind are referred to as &quot;noun adjuncts&quot;:
<a href="https://i.sstatic.net/YQh1U.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/YQh1U.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
<p>So 高的 is not an adjective, it is a noun functioning as a noun  adjunct</p>
<p>Edit:</p>
<p>My greatest pet peeve in life is being &quot;corrected&quot; when I was actually right in the first place. If you find fault with what I outlined here its because your understanding was superficial in the first place.</p>
<p><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/ASaQR.jpg" alt="enter image description here" /></p>
<p>Directly from the Wikipedia page on Chinese adjectives. Chinese adjectives are not adjectives, they are verbs. They are often referred to as stative verbs or attributive verbs. Even calling them adjectives is an attempt to project one's own Euro-centric understanding of language and grammar onto the Chinese language. Parts of speech do not exist in a 1:1 ratio between languages.</p>
<p><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/gW1v7.jpg" alt="enter image description here" /></p>
<p>Directly from the wikipedia page on nominalization (which I had already directed people towards earlier). As I said, if you have any opinions in opposition of these two concepts it is because your own understanding is superficial.</p>
<p>Even if you ignore these facts and compare the understanding I'm affording you here objectively against the &quot;conventional&quot; dogmatic approach typically being taught to English learners (the approach perpetuating the idea of literal adjectives in Mandarin) essentially you're making a tradeoff between an actual, intuitive understanding of the underlying grammar vs the small amount of comfort afforded to you by being able to use the term that you're already familiar with (adjective).</p>
<p>So you can either continue falsely identifying these words as adjectives and having to constantly deal with the fact that they don't behave as adjectives do in English, or you can accept that they aren't adjectives but instead a set of verbs that convey meanings that are akin to adjectives.</p>
<p>Edit 2:</p>
<p>It's a curious thing that you can see the term 形容词 suddenly burst onto the scene in the 1930s:</p>
<p><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/AyhC4.jpg" alt="enter image description here" /></p>
<p>Now I'm no history buff, maybe someone else can tell me what was the nature of Chinese-European relations at that time</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-09-14T20:21:53.023Z
Hi, in the sentence 这很新, 新 is an adjective, and the structure is called Adjectival Predicate Sentence (形容词谓语句). In the sentence 这是新的, 新 is still an adjective, and the structure used is the 是…的 structure.
Joe at wearyourchinesename.com
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-09-15T03:38:34.583Z
@GiuseppeRomanazzi see edit
小奥利奥
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-09-15T09:42:39.137Z
I'm not referring to **English** adjectives or **English** verbs. Chinese grammar is different, as you correctly said. A Chinese 形容词 does not become 动词 only because you need to translate it as a verb in English. It's difficult to avoid the common mistake of explaining Chinese grammar in English terms. And when you do, as some linguists do preferring to use the terms static or stative verb to describe 形容词, the chance of being misunderstood is high.
Joe at wearyourchinesename.com
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-09-15T09:46:08.363Z
BTW, both Wikipedia citations are correct. It's just a matter of misunderstanding and wrong application. To avoid that, I'd suggest to refer to authoritative sources in Chinese, as I do. For example, I would start from  a Chinese monolingual dictionary.
Joe at wearyourchinesename.com
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-09-15T12:57:32.880Z
@GiuseppeRomanazzi Your "authoritative sources" are the ones that invented the term 形容词 in the first place! The term 形容词 was invented by Europeans while trying to define these  structures, In the very same way that 他 was split into 他 and 她 due to western influence. You're using the fact that "authorities" use 形容词 and adjective interchangeably as evidence of these words actually being adjectives when the term itself was coined in an attempt to project their own European concept of adjectives into the Chinese language. Not to mention, "appeal to authority" is literally a logical fallacy.
小奥利奥
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-09-15T15:25:59.340Z
Sorry, I thought we were talking about Modern Mandarin Chinese language, not the one that you are going (I'm sure you will - being so determined) to change in the future, when my dictionary will become an antique. Good luck.
Joe at wearyourchinesename.com
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-09-15T16:05:52.810Z
@GiuseppeRomanazzi The nature of grammar in Mandarin will be what it will be regardless of how we seek to describe it in English, what is being debated here isn't the grammar of Mandarin but instead how it is being described in English to those learning it. The fact of the matter is that the dogmatic approach that you and those before you propetuate is less than ideal. If you can't even discern what is being discussed here then don't bother arguing with me, nobody is talking about changing the language, what is being addressed is how that language is interpreted in English
小奥利奥
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-09-15T16:08:10.897Z
Additionally, the irony is not lost on me that you would accuse me of trying to change the Mandarin language immediately after I've made a case for that being done by the predecessors of your school of thought
小奥利奥
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-09-24T19:07:00.887Z
Wow about a million things that didn't make sense to me before make sense to me now. Why is the explanation of stative verbs not in every Chinese course???
Davis Yoshida
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-09-25T15:30:01.540Z
@DavisYoshida because there are people that really really want to maintain a 1 to 1 ratio of parts of speech between English and Mandarin so they insist on this inaccurate interpretation of adjectives
小奥利奥
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-09-25T18:07:47.287Z
@DavisYoshida it really explains a lot, see my edit
小奥利奥
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-09-14T18:32:27.453Z
2021-09-25T18:44:24.247Z
2021-09-25T18:44:24.247Z
小奥利奥
<p>Yes,it’s right,if we want to say the book is new.we will say這本書是新的</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-10-03T15:04:27.700Z
2021-10-03T15:04:27.700Z
Jay
<blockquote>
<p>adjectives like old, new, good don't need 是</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I would not put it that way. I would say that sentences without a verb are very common in Chinese. In this case, the structure is called 形容词谓语句 (adjectival predicate sentence), that is a sentence with an adjective as the main element of its predicate.</p>
<p>Example:</p>
<p>你的房间很大。<br />
你的房间: subject<br />
很大: predicate</p>
<p>In an affirmative sentence, the adjectival predicate is usually preceded by 很, which is a weakened adverb here without much significance of an adverb of degree. Without 很, comparison or contrast is often implied.</p>
<p>Example:</p>
<p>你的房间大 (compared to, for example, 我的房间小).</p>
<blockquote>
<p>These words are used with the 是...的　pattern</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Nouns, verbs, adjectives, and phrases can <strong>all</strong> be used with the 是...的　pattern.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>So is this sentence grammatically correct? 老师的书是新的</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Yes, it is. The structure is:</p>
<p>主语 + <strong>是</strong> + 形容词 + <strong>的</strong>。</p>
<p>This structure is used to categorize (表示归类).</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-09-14T22:40:50.073Z
2021-09-14T22:40:50.073Z
Joe at wearyourchinesename.com
<p>I know that adjectives like old, new, good don't need 是. For example, we say 都很贵:Everything is expensive. We don't say 都是贵.
On the other hand, I know that there are some words like colours, materials, gender and etc which are called &quot;distinguishing words&quot;. These words are used with the 是...的　pattern. For example, 是红色的:It is red.</p>
<p>But as far as I know, the word &quot;新:new&quot; is not a distinguishing word like colours, materials or gender.
So is this sentence grammatically correct?
老师的书是新的</p>

<grammar>
Is it correct to say 是新的
# Is it correct to say 是新的

(Asked by: username_0 on 2021-09-14)

I know that adjectives like old, new, good don't need 是. For example, we say 都很贵:Everything is expensive. We don't say 都是贵.
On the other hand, I know that there are some words like colours, materials, gender and etc which are called "distinguishing words". These words are used with the 是...的　pattern. For example, 是红色的:It is red.

But as far as I know, the word "新:new" is not a distinguishing word like colours, materials or gender.
So is this sentence grammatically correct?
老师的书是新的

**Tags:** grammar

---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2021-09-14. Score: 2 | Accepted answer

XY

X很Y

X是Y的

All three of these are grammatically correct and equivalent in meaning (though the second is always preferred over the first and the third has an air of emphasis)

In a sentence such as "这很新"， 这 is a noun, 新 is a verb (roughly meaning "to be new") and 很 is an adverb.

In "这是新的" 这 is still a noun while 新的 is also a noun (roughly meaning "that which is new"). If you want to understand why 新 is a verb and 新的 is a noun then I suggest you look up the term "nominalization".

In this way, 这很新 loosely translates to "this [is in the state of being new]" while 这是新的 loosely translates to "this is ([that which] is in the state of being new)"

As an added note, it is by this same grammar that we arrive at structures such as "高的人". 高 is a verb meaning "to be tall" while 高的 is a noun meaning "that which is tall". In the same way that mustard + stain = mustard stain, [that which is tall] + person = a person that is tall.

Words of this kind are referred to as "noun adjuncts":
[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/YQh1U.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/YQh1U.png)

So 高的 is not an adjective, it is a noun functioning as a noun adjunct

Edit:

My greatest pet peeve in life is being "corrected" when I was actually right in the first place. If you find fault with what I outlined here its because your understanding was superficial in the first place.

![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/ASaQR.jpg)

Directly from the Wikipedia page on Chinese adjectives. Chinese adjectives are not adjectives, they are verbs. They are often referred to as stative verbs or attributive verbs. Even calling them adjectives is an attempt to project one's own Euro-centric understanding of language and grammar onto the Chinese language. Parts of speech do not exist in a 1:1 ratio between languages.

![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/gW1v7.jpg)

Directly from the wikipedia page on nominalization (which I had already directed people towards earlier). As I said, if you have any opinions in opposition of these two concepts it is because your own understanding is superficial.

Even if you ignore these facts and compare the understanding I'm affording you here objectively against the "conventional" dogmatic approach typically being taught to English learners (the approach perpetuating the idea of literal adjectives in Mandarin) essentially you're making a tradeoff between an actual, intuitive understanding of the underlying grammar vs the small amount of comfort afforded to you by being able to use the term that you're already familiar with (adjective).

So you can either continue falsely identifying these words as adjectives and having to constantly deal with the fact that they don't behave as adjectives do in English, or you can accept that they aren't adjectives but instead a set of verbs that convey meanings that are akin to adjectives.

Edit 2:

It's a curious thing that you can see the term 形容词 suddenly burst onto the scene in the 1930s:

![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/AyhC4.jpg)

Now I'm no history buff, maybe someone else can tell me what was the nature of Chinese-European relations at that time

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: Hi, in the sentence 这很新, 新 is an adjective, and the structure is called Adjectival Predicate Sentence (形容词谓语句). In the sentence 这是新的, 新 is still an adjective, and the structure used is the 是…的 structure.  
> **username_1**: @GiuseppeRomanazzi see edit  
> **username_2**: I'm not referring to **English** adjectives or **English** verbs. Chinese grammar is different, as you correctly said. A Chinese 形容词 does not become 动词 only because you need to translate it as a verb in English. It's difficult to avoid the common mistake of explaining Chinese grammar in English terms. And when you do, as some linguists do preferring to use the terms static or stative verb to describe 形容词, the chance of being misunderstood is high.  
> **username_2**: BTW, both Wikipedia citations are correct. It's just a matter of misunderstanding and wrong application. To avoid that, I'd suggest to refer to authoritative sources in Chinese, as I do. For example, I would start from  a Chinese monolingual dictionary.  
> **username_1**: @GiuseppeRomanazzi Your "authoritative sources" are the ones that invented the term 形容词 in the first place! The term 形容词 was invented by Europeans while trying to define these  structures, In the very same way that 他 was split into 他 and 她 due to western influence. You're using the fact that "authorities" use 形容词 and adjective interchangeably as evidence of these words actually being adjectives when the term itself was coined in an attempt to project their own European concept of adjectives into the Chinese language. Not to mention, "appeal to authority" is literally a logical fallacy.  
> **username_2**: Sorry, I thought we were talking about Modern Mandarin Chinese language, not the one that you are going (I'm sure you will - being so determined) to change in the future, when my dictionary will become an antique. Good luck.  
> **username_1**: @GiuseppeRomanazzi The nature of grammar in Mandarin will be what it will be regardless of how we seek to describe it in English, what is being debated here isn't the grammar of Mandarin but instead how it is being described in English to those learning it. The fact of the matter is that the dogmatic approach that you and those before you propetuate is less than ideal. If you can't even discern what is being discussed here then don't bother arguing with me, nobody is talking about changing the language, what is being addressed is how that language is interpreted in English  
> **username_1**: Additionally, the irony is not lost on me that you would accuse me of trying to change the Mandarin language immediately after I've made a case for that being done by the predecessors of your school of thought  
> **username_3**: Wow about a million things that didn't make sense to me before make sense to me now. Why is the explanation of stative verbs not in every Chinese course???  
> **username_1**: @DavisYoshida because there are people that really really want to maintain a 1 to 1 ratio of parts of speech between English and Mandarin so they insist on this inaccurate interpretation of adjectives  
> **username_1**: @DavisYoshida it really explains a lot, see my edit  

---

### Answer by username_4 on 2021-10-03. Score: 1

Yes,it’s right,if we want to say the book is new.we will say這本書是新的


---

### Answer by username_2 on 2021-09-14. Score: 1

> adjectives like old, new, good don't need 是

I would not put it that way. I would say that sentences without a verb are very common in Chinese. In this case, the structure is called 形容词谓语句 (adjectival predicate sentence), that is a sentence with an adjective as the main element of its predicate.

Example:

你的房间很大。  
你的房间: subject  
很大: predicate

In an affirmative sentence, the adjectival predicate is usually preceded by 很, which is a weakened adverb here without much significance of an adverb of degree. Without 很, comparison or contrast is often implied.

Example:

你的房间大 (compared to, for example, 我的房间小).

> These words are used with the 是...的　pattern

Nouns, verbs, adjectives, and phrases can **all** be used with the 是...的　pattern.

> So is this sentence grammatically correct? 老师的书是新的

Yes, it is. The structure is:

主语 + **是** + 形容词 + **的**。

This structure is used to categorize (表示归类).


---

