<p>I can't for the life of me understand why switching an associative verb to the front forms a question in English. Am I not stupid? </p>

<p>The fact is, in a lot of cases, languages don't follow any kind of logic or reasoning. </p>

<p>If you say 他吃饭了, it's a complete sentence. If you say 他吃了饭, a listener would expect you to tell him what happened next, like 他吃了饭，拍拍肚子就走了。Now that it's complete, the listener can rest in peace.</p>

<p>So in this case, 他吃了饭 means "After he ate" -- Apparently an incomplete sentence. </p>

<p>But why does switching the position of 了 change its meaning? No one has the slightest idea.</p>

<p>There are situations where "verb + 了 + object" makes a complete sentence. Like when answering "他吃了什么?" with "他吃了一只火鸡."</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-25T02:33:57.923Z
Up voted! You are a funny guy! :D
thinwa
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-25T02:38:22.570Z
In fact, your last example implied that Chinese language is rely on context heavily. I feel that "他吃了饭" sounds weird to Native Chinese speakers, but I can't tell what's wrong. Until I saw your answer. It's incomplete if someone just say "他吃了饭" without any context.
thinwa
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-25T02:53:28.700Z
What would you say is the difference between 他吃了什么？ and 他吃什么了？
Enrico Brasil
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-25T03:20:35.900Z
@EnricoBrasil totally interchangeable.
Wang Dingwei
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-25T05:23:31.903Z
他吃饭了, and  他吃了饭 are completly different! 1)He will eat NOW! 2)He did/do/will eat.
coobit
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-25T05:42:38.093Z
@coobit depends on the tone you are speaking, both could mean a few things. However, neither 1 nor 2 stands for common usage.
Wang Dingwei
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-25T06:07:46.083Z
Wang Dingwei, Can you write your list of possible situations and traslations. Whithout modifying core  他吃了饭 but modifying everything around it? Please.
coobit
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-25T07:31:23.097Z
Wang Dingwei, "After he ate" as you put it. Is it the only such interpretation? Can it be read as: ""After he started eating"?
coobit
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-25T07:43:20.873Z
@coobit In most of the cases it's `after he ate`, there could be exceptions but I can't think of any for now. `After he started eating` doesn't seem possible.
Wang Dingwei
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-25T15:19:52.973Z
@WangDingwei Is it an ok-ish interchange? =P
Enrico Brasil
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-25T15:22:56.287Z
Either way, I think 吃饭 should be exchanged for another "uncommon" VO (say 买东西 or 学中文), since its usage with 了 always brings some other readings.
Enrico Brasil
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-25T02:11:49.113Z
2016-05-25T02:18:10.427Z
2016-05-25T02:18:10.427Z
Wang Dingwei
<p>I would say that your sentence 他吃了饭 sounds incomplete for two reasons: </p>

<ol>
<li>there is an aspect marker 了 <em>exactly</em> <br></li>
<li>the sentence structure in Chinese is theme-comment<br>
<br></li>
</ol>

<p>IMHO, what you say here:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The difference between 他吃饭 and 他吃了饭 lies only in that 了 renders the situation as factual rather then irreal (habitual, desirable, wishing, issuing a command and ect.)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>is due to the fact that if you state that something has ended, you imply that it happened. There's nothing that hints about "factual" vs "non factual" directly in the presence of 了 there. I believe it is a consequence of it being an aspect marker.
Therefore that's <em>exactly</em> the aspect particle 了 making the sentence hang. That's what that 了 is for. <br><br> 
As Wang Dingwei says: </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>So in this case, 他吃了饭 means "After he ate" -- Apparently an incomplete sentence.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>You must complete with something more: </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>他吃了饭就走了 <br>
  他吃了饭觉得不舒服 <br>
  他吃了饭一般睡午觉 <br></p>
</blockquote>

<p>And you can also see that the sentences above can be translated with different tenses, therefore:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The verb 吃了 is not rendered to ANY time <br></p>
</blockquote>

<p>is intuitively true because aspectual 了 doesn't convey information about time. It marks the completeness of the action, not directly its actuality. In 他吃了饭 you are stating that something ends without accounting for what the subject (actually, the theme) does next. That's all what there is to it, IMHO.</p>

<p>As a last note, if you just want to say that you have finished eating without adding further information, than the theme of your sentence is the food! And to specify that the action is not hanging, I would use a result verb （完，好） AND a <strong>modal</strong> 了, indicating that I ate and I'm eating no more.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>饭我吃好了</p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-01-19T12:17:02.773Z
"hypothetical" is not a good word. I've made a mistake to use it. 我吃饭 can be translated in many ways and "hypothetical case" would be just one of many. The general class to which 我吃饭 belongs is named - irrealis, which includes: habits(I usually eat), desires (I want to eat), demands (I will eat now, as a command to myself), hypothetical (if I eat...) and ect.
coobit
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-01-19T12:17:13.807Z
Adding 了 to 我吃饭 just forces 我吃饭 change it's "class" of possible translations from "irrealis" to "real or factual". So 我吃了饭 is not a habit, not a demand, not a desire, but a fact (it took place) but WHEN it took place is not possible to guess, thus your "translation of 我吃了饭 as "AFTER I eat then......". And this can be in any tense.
coobit
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-01-19T12:23:33.793Z
"overthinking" Well, it's not my theory. All languages belong either to tense or modal family. Modal languages indicate time by using modal particles (了 for example) thus dividing actions to those, which took place indeed and to those which haven't yet taken place anywhere but in someone mind. English is a tense language, but Chinese and many other asian-oceanic languages are modal (without any tense).
coobit
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-01-19T12:28:58.337Z
I was not aware of the irrealis category. I've edited my answer
blackgreen
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-01-20T09:33:14.883Z
I see. Nice post. Now about "他吃了饭": you are RIGHT that even adding 了 situation is still tense-ambiguous, but only absolute-tense-ambiguous! The "relative tense" is rendered completely since now "他吃了饭" must be translated as "After I eat..." V+了 serves just this purpose: rendering factual anteriority.
coobit
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-01-20T09:35:59.330Z
But ther is another 了! Sentential-了 is a marker of absolute tense. Having "After I eat..." i.e. relative tense is set, we need futher to inform the listener about absolute tense. We can do it in a couple of ways, but one would be to add 了 at the end of the sentence: 我吃了饭了.
coobit
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-01-20T09:38:10.573Z
In the example below English "absolute tense marker" is "went"  - ex."Once he had eaten, I went out!". Relative tense marker is "had".
coobit
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-01-20T09:40:41.953Z
So in chinese IMHO that english sentence should have a protoform of a kind: "Once he eat了, I go out了!"
coobit
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-01-20T17:07:59.330Z
>> The "relative tense" is rendered completely. Correct. 
>> rendering factual anteriority. Correct.
>> protoform of a kind: "Once he eat了, I go out了!" Correct again. As in one of my examples above.
blackgreen
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-01-20T17:14:19.667Z
It's a bit weird to think about usage of aspectual and modal 了 in terms of tense, since tense is surely not a feature of Chinese, however for the purposes of this discussion, I think your interpretation might make sense. However exactly because tense is not the correct perspective IMHO you could express relative tense with modal 了 still (!), as in 昨天他吃完晚饭就走了. The point is, 了conveys aspect (V+了) or *change* (final 了), not tense.
blackgreen
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-01-19T11:25:17.307Z
2017-01-19T12:32:11.270Z
2017-01-19T12:32:11.270Z
blackgreen
<p>As I study usage of different aspects markers in Chinese, I started to realize that my problems with those markers come from simple fact that: "I don't see any use in them." Reason for this is: Whenever I see a bare verb phrase, I translate it as <em>simple present time</em>. But this is far from truth. </p>

<p>So, let me ask a question:</p>

<p><strong>"Why does 他吃了饭 sound incomplete?"</strong>
<em>This kind of sentence is being used in many theoretical talks and papers on Chinese linguistics</em></p>

<p><strong>My answers:</strong>
The difference between 他吃饭 and 他吃了饭 lies only in that 了 renders the situation as factual rather then irreal (habitual, desirable, wishing, issuing a command etc.) </p>

<p>Explanation:</p>

<p>他吃饭
can be translated (<strong>in proper context</strong>) as:</p>

<ol>
<li>An order. "He (must) eat (now)!" (screaming).</li>
<li>A habit. He eats (always).</li>
<li>A desire. He (wants/thinking about) to eat.</li>
</ol>

<p>But once you add 了 to a verb(as in 他吃了饭),  you thus delete all the mentioned above as a possible translations. Now the <strong>situation</strong> is "factual \actual". It is not about habit, orders, desires and other irrealis modes. But rendering situation factual is not enough, you still have a big list of possible translations (<strong>in proper context</strong>), for example:</p>

<ol>
<li>A fact. He ate.</li>
<li>A fact. He eats... and then... (not as a habit, but actually eats as in some narrative)</li>
<li>A fact. He just initiated a process of eating.</li>
<li>Future. He will have eaten (by the time ...) </li>
<li>any suggestions?</li>
</ol>

<p>that is why in 他吃了饭 you need further specification! The verb 吃了 is not rendered to ANY time (just rendered to reality, making it a fact or eventuality)!!!</p>

<p>P.S. Please, refrain from "perfective aspect marker 了" viewpoint if it is possible. Thank you!</p>

<p><strong>P.s.s. Please, provide your possible translations and contexts for 他吃了饭</strong> (this is very important for not natives! We need to see the point in adding aspects to naked verbs!!!) </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-24T21:28:58.577Z
specification could be as follows,
A fact. He ate.他吃了饭
A fact. He eats. (not as a habit but actually eats)  他（正）在吃饭，他吃着饭
A fact. He just intiated a process of eating.他吃起饭，他开始吃饭，
Future. He will have eaten (by the time ...) 。。。时，他已经吃了饭
user6065
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-25T01:55:36.703Z
I'd like to see more comments from natives about 他吃了饭 sounding incomplete. Although grammars always say that, every native I asked about says it is ok.
Enrico Brasil
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-25T02:29:34.157Z
@EnricoBrasil In many situations when they say "OK" they actually mean "ok-ish". Provide your native speaker with detailed context, and ask her "What would you say" instead of "Is it OK to say..."
Wang Dingwei
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-25T03:41:32.020Z
他吃了早饭／午饭／晚饭，一顿饭，他已经吃了饭 seem complete sentences，as has been pointed out repeatedly sentence final 了 acts as modal particle, and 吃了饭了 is often abbreviated to 吃饭了
user6065
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-25T05:30:19.547Z
"Although grammars always say that" That's the POINT!!! It is complete in the right context but SOME natives just don't see any context or do not want to see any because of many possible context applied.
coobit
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-25T09:47:46.323Z
it would seem similarly, "he ate" could hardly be a complete sentence in English, instead "he was eating" 他正在吃饭＂or "he had a meal" 他吃了顿饭 might be complete
user6065
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-25T16:14:29.550Z
He ate is 100% complete. But "after he ate." Is absurd.
coobit
<meaning-in-context><particles>
Why does 他吃了饭 sound incomplete?
# Why does 他吃了饭 sound incomplete?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2016-05-24)

As I study usage of different aspects markers in Chinese, I started to realize that my problems with those markers come from simple fact that: "I don't see any use in them." Reason for this is: Whenever I see a bare verb phrase, I translate it as *simple present time*. But this is far from truth.

So, let me ask a question:

**"Why does 他吃了饭 sound incomplete?"**
*This kind of sentence is being used in many theoretical talks and papers on Chinese linguistics*

**My answers:**
The difference between 他吃饭 and 他吃了饭 lies only in that 了 renders the situation as factual rather then irreal (habitual, desirable, wishing, issuing a command etc.)

Explanation:

他吃饭
can be translated (**in proper context**) as:

1. An order. "He (must) eat (now)!" (screaming).
2. A habit. He eats (always).
3. A desire. He (wants/thinking about) to eat.

But once you add 了 to a verb(as in 他吃了饭), you thus delete all the mentioned above as a possible translations. Now the **situation** is "factual \actual". It is not about habit, orders, desires and other irrealis modes. But rendering situation factual is not enough, you still have a big list of possible translations (**in proper context**), for example:

1. A fact. He ate.
2. A fact. He eats... and then... (not as a habit, but actually eats as in some narrative)
3. A fact. He just initiated a process of eating.
4. Future. He will have eaten (by the time ...)
5. any suggestions?

that is why in 他吃了饭 you need further specification! The verb 吃了 is not rendered to ANY time (just rendered to reality, making it a fact or eventuality)!!!

P.S. Please, refrain from "perfective aspect marker 了" viewpoint if it is possible. Thank you!

**P.s.s. Please, provide your possible translations and contexts for 他吃了饭** (this is very important for not natives! We need to see the point in adding aspects to naked verbs!!!)

**Tags:** meaning-in-context, particles
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: specification could be as follows, A fact. He ate.他吃了饭 A fact. He eats. (not as a habit but actually eats)  他（正）在吃饭，他吃着饭 A fact. He just intiated a process of eating.他吃起饭，他开始吃饭， Future. He will have eaten (by the time ...) 。。。时，他已经吃了饭  
> **username_2**: I'd like to see more comments from natives about 他吃了饭 sounding incomplete. Although grammars always say that, every native I asked about says it is ok.  
> **username_3**: @EnricoBrasil In many situations when they say "OK" they actually mean "ok-ish". Provide your native speaker with detailed context, and ask her "What would you say" instead of "Is it OK to say..."  
> **username_1**: 他吃了早饭／午饭／晚饭，一顿饭，他已经吃了饭 seem complete sentences，as has been pointed out repeatedly sentence final 了 acts as modal particle, and 吃了饭了 is often abbreviated to 吃饭了  
> **username_0**: "Although grammars always say that" That's the POINT!!! It is complete in the right context but SOME natives just don't see any context or do not want to see any because of many possible context applied.  
> **username_1**: it would seem similarly, "he ate" could hardly be a complete sentence in English, instead "he was eating" 他正在吃饭＂or "he had a meal" 他吃了顿饭 might be complete  
> **username_0**: He ate is 100% complete. But "after he ate." Is absurd.  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2016-05-25. Score: 5

I can't for the life of me understand why switching an associative verb to the front forms a question in English. Am I not stupid?

The fact is, in a lot of cases, languages don't follow any kind of logic or reasoning.

If you say 他吃饭了, it's a complete sentence. If you say 他吃了饭, a listener would expect you to tell him what happened next, like 他吃了饭，拍拍肚子就走了。Now that it's complete, the listener can rest in peace.

So in this case, 他吃了饭 means "After he ate" -- Apparently an incomplete sentence.

But why does switching the position of 了 change its meaning? No one has the slightest idea.

There are situations where "verb + 了 + object" makes a complete sentence. Like when answering "他吃了什么?" with "他吃了一只火鸡."

> **Comments:**
> **username_4**: Up voted! You are a funny guy! :D  
> **username_4**: In fact, your last example implied that Chinese language is rely on context heavily. I feel that "他吃了饭" sounds weird to Native Chinese speakers, but I can't tell what's wrong. Until I saw your answer. It's incomplete if someone just say "他吃了饭" without any context.  
> **username_2**: What would you say is the difference between 他吃了什么？ and 他吃什么了？  
> **username_3**: @EnricoBrasil totally interchangeable.  
> **username_0**: 他吃饭了, and  他吃了饭 are completly different! 1)He will eat NOW! 2)He did/do/will eat.  
> **username_3**: @coobit depends on the tone you are speaking, both could mean a few things. However, neither 1 nor 2 stands for common usage.  
> **username_0**: Wang Dingwei, Can you write your list of possible situations and traslations. Whithout modifying core  他吃了饭 but modifying everything around it? Please.  
> **username_0**: Wang Dingwei, "After he ate" as you put it. Is it the only such interpretation? Can it be read as: ""After he started eating"?  
> **username_3**: @coobit In most of the cases it's `after he ate`, there could be exceptions but I can't think of any for now. `After he started eating` doesn't seem possible.  
> **username_2**: @WangDingwei Is it an ok-ish interchange? =P  
> **username_2**: Either way, I think 吃饭 should be exchanged for another "uncommon" VO (say 买东西 or 学中文), since its usage with 了 always brings some other readings.  

---

### Answer by username_5 on 2017-01-19. Score: 2

I would say that your sentence 他吃了饭 sounds incomplete for two reasons:

1. there is an aspect marker 了 *exactly*
2. the sentence structure in Chinese is theme-comment

IMHO, what you say here:

> The difference between 他吃饭 and 他吃了饭 lies only in that 了 renders the situation as factual rather then irreal (habitual, desirable, wishing, issuing a command and ect.)

is due to the fact that if you state that something has ended, you imply that it happened. There's nothing that hints about "factual" vs "non factual" directly in the presence of 了 there. I believe it is a consequence of it being an aspect marker.
Therefore that's *exactly* the aspect particle 了 making the sentence hang. That's what that 了 is for.   
  
As Wang Dingwei says:

> So in this case, 他吃了饭 means "After he ate" -- Apparently an incomplete sentence.

You must complete with something more:

> 他吃了饭就走了   
> 他吃了饭觉得不舒服   
> 他吃了饭一般睡午觉

And you can also see that the sentences above can be translated with different tenses, therefore:

> The verb 吃了 is not rendered to ANY time

is intuitively true because aspectual 了 doesn't convey information about time. It marks the completeness of the action, not directly its actuality. In 他吃了饭 you are stating that something ends without accounting for what the subject (actually, the theme) does next. That's all what there is to it, IMHO.

As a last note, if you just want to say that you have finished eating without adding further information, than the theme of your sentence is the food! And to specify that the action is not hanging, I would use a result verb （完，好） AND a **modal** 了, indicating that I ate and I'm eating no more.

> 饭我吃好了

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: "hypothetical" is not a good word. I've made a mistake to use it. 我吃饭 can be translated in many ways and "hypothetical case" would be just one of many. The general class to which 我吃饭 belongs is named - irrealis, which includes: habits(I usually eat), desires (I want to eat), demands (I will eat now, as a command to myself), hypothetical (if I eat...) and ect.  
> **username_0**: Adding 了 to 我吃饭 just forces 我吃饭 change it's "class" of possible translations from "irrealis" to "real or factual". So 我吃了饭 is not a habit, not a demand, not a desire, but a fact (it took place) but WHEN it took place is not possible to guess, thus your "translation of 我吃了饭 as "AFTER I eat then......". And this can be in any tense.  
> **username_0**: "overthinking" Well, it's not my theory. All languages belong either to tense or modal family. Modal languages indicate time by using modal particles (了 for example) thus dividing actions to those, which took place indeed and to those which haven't yet taken place anywhere but in someone mind. English is a tense language, but Chinese and many other asian-oceanic languages are modal (without any tense).  
> **username_5**: I was not aware of the irrealis category. I've edited my answer  
> **username_0**: I see. Nice post. Now about "他吃了饭": you are RIGHT that even adding 了 situation is still tense-ambiguous, but only absolute-tense-ambiguous! The "relative tense" is rendered completely since now "他吃了饭" must be translated as "After I eat..." V+了 serves just this purpose: rendering factual anteriority.  
> **username_0**: But ther is another 了! Sentential-了 is a marker of absolute tense. Having "After I eat..." i.e. relative tense is set, we need futher to inform the listener about absolute tense. We can do it in a couple of ways, but one would be to add 了 at the end of the sentence: 我吃了饭了.  
> **username_0**: In the example below English "absolute tense marker" is "went"  - ex."Once he had eaten, I went out!". Relative tense marker is "had".  
> **username_0**: So in chinese IMHO that english sentence should have a protoform of a kind: "Once he eat了, I go out了!"  
> **username_5**: >> The "relative tense" is rendered completely. Correct.  >> rendering factual anteriority. Correct. >> protoform of a kind: "Once he eat了, I go out了!" Correct again. As in one of my examples above.  
> **username_5**: It's a bit weird to think about usage of aspectual and modal 了 in terms of tense, since tense is surely not a feature of Chinese, however for the purposes of this discussion, I think your interpretation might make sense. However exactly because tense is not the correct perspective IMHO you could express relative tense with modal 了 still (!), as in 昨天他吃完晚饭就走了. The point is, 了conveys aspect (V+了) or *change* (final 了), not tense.  

---

