<p>Those two phrases sound a bit stilted. When 给 is used as the sense of 被, it's better you add the one who performs that action. For example, 你给他宠坏了, 你给他教坏了 and etc. </p>

<p>玛蒂尔达几乎天天一个人给丢在家里 is not a very good sentence in my opinion. It might be ok colloquially, but it's not good in writing. 玛蒂尔达几乎天天被一个人丢在家里 is probably an improvement. </p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-09-21T03:57:43.183Z
Seems more common in Beijing Dialect
炸鱼薯条德里克
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-09-20T09:32:39.090Z
2019-09-20T09:32:39.090Z
dan
<p>「給」here is a colloquial, alternative way of expressing the same meaning as「被」. It is non-standard in Standard Chinese.</p>

<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/J6ZlK.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/J6ZlK.png" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-09-20T06:17:42.147Z
2019-09-20T06:36:10.280Z
2019-09-20T06:36:10.280Z
dROOOze
<p>I bought the Chinese version of Matilda, and I'm confused about this:</p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/PWq9F.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/PWq9F.jpg" alt="Matilda, page 7" /></a></p>
<p>Specifically, I'm confused about why <a href="http://dict.cn/%E7%BB%99" rel="nofollow noreferrer">给</a> (usually meaning &quot;to give&quot;) is in these phrases:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>你给宠坏了<br />
You're getting spoiled  [original English (<a href="http://jssisdubai.com/document/uploaded/matilda.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">ref.</a>)]<br />
You give spoiled  [literal translation]</p>
<p>一个人给丢在家里<br />
left alone in the house  [original English]<br />
a person give lost in the house  [literal translation]</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The use of 给 as &quot;to give&quot; makes no sense to me; perhaps 给 has an additional meaning I'm unaware of.</p>
<p><strong>Question</strong>: What is 给 doing in 你给宠坏了 and 一个人给丢在家里?</p>

<usage><meaning-in-context>
What is 给 doing in 你给宠坏了 and 一个人给丢在家里 (Matilda 玛蒂尔达, p.7)?
# What is 给 doing in 你给宠坏了 and 一个人给丢在家里 (Matilda 玛蒂尔达, p.7)?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2019-09-20)

I bought the Chinese version of Matilda, and I'm confused about this:

[![Matilda, page 7](https://i.sstatic.net/PWq9F.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/PWq9F.jpg)

Specifically, I'm confused about why [给](http://dict.cn/%E7%BB%99) (usually meaning "to give") is in these phrases:

> 你给宠坏了  
> You're getting spoiled [original English ([ref.](http://jssisdubai.com/document/uploaded/matilda.pdf))]  
> You give spoiled [literal translation]
>
> 一个人给丢在家里  
> left alone in the house [original English]  
> a person give lost in the house [literal translation]

The use of 给 as "to give" makes no sense to me; perhaps 给 has an additional meaning I'm unaware of.

**Question**: What is 给 doing in 你给宠坏了 and 一个人给丢在家里?

**Tags:** usage, meaning-in-context

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2019-09-20. Score: 2 | Accepted answer

Those two phrases sound a bit stilted. When 给 is used as the sense of 被, it's better you add the one who performs that action. For example, 你给他宠坏了, 你给他教坏了 and etc.

玛蒂尔达几乎天天一个人给丢在家里 is not a very good sentence in my opinion. It might be ok colloquially, but it's not good in writing. 玛蒂尔达几乎天天被一个人丢在家里 is probably an improvement.

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: Seems more common in Beijing Dialect  

---

### Answer by username_3 on 2019-09-20. Score: 2

「給」here is a colloquial, alternative way of expressing the same meaning as「被」. It is non-standard in Standard Chinese.

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/J6ZlK.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/J6ZlK.png)


---

