<p>First, I think that the sentence should be:</p>

<pre><code>虽然是坑爹了，但是认错态度很好。
(He made some mistake, but he had good attitude for admitting his mistake.)
</code></pre>

<p>坑爹 means did something wrong, it's none of his father's business,or you can say 他做了不靠谱的事，但是认错态度很好。</p>

<p>Second, 认错态度 means has a good attitude for admitting one's mistake.</p>

<p>Such as:</p>

<pre><code>对于历史，日本没有好的认错态度。
（For history, Japan do not has a good attitude for admitting its mistake ） 
</code></pre>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-01-10T11:02:31.030Z
答案为什么给扣分了，why was the answer marked down？
user6065
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-01-11T13:11:27.127Z
可能我只给出解释，没有分析语法.
lqhcpsgbl
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-01-10T07:34:34.543Z
2015-01-10T07:42:01.710Z
2015-01-10T07:42:01.710Z
lqhcpsgbl
<p>（Taking for granted that VO－verb means the same as 离合词。） Putting any object as attributive in between the ２ characters （把宾语插在离合词两字中间充当定语）is not the only way of dealing with objects，probably not even the most common way。Some typical examples of object as attributive in between：</p>

<p>婆婆住了四个多月的院。 今天我跑了两个小时的步。这对中年夫妻是去年复的昏。那伙匪徒又绑了谁的架。The attributive in-between case includes attributive w/o 的：你妈给我留了什么话没有？</p>

<p>this method may not be available， except for very simple attributives like 什么，例句：他认什么错 (see 他认了什么罪？ below)</p>

<p>aThe other more common way seems to be fronting object with a preposition as adverbial adjunct （用介词把宾语提到前面充当状语，这些介词包括“和、给、为、向、跟”等）e.g.他们很有礼貌地向我们行礼。可以请你为我们照一张相吗？</p>

<p>６ of preceding examples are from <a href="http://forum.swissinfo.ch/viewtopic.php?f=73&amp;t=36685" rel="nofollow">http://forum.swissinfo.ch/viewtopic.php?f=73&amp;t=36685</a></p>

<p>＂现代汉语离合词用法词典＂does not include ＂认错＂ but has ＂认真＂ and ＂认罪＂：Examples of 离用法 （excluding well known 了，过，着 in between， only last 例句 may be relevant）</p>

<p>认真：＂认＂后带补语：人家开玩笑的，你怎么就认起真来
了？</p>

<p>认罪：＂认＂后带补语：他就没认过一次罪。
＂罪＂提到＂认＂前：他连罪都不认，怎么能说他态度好。
＂罪＂前带定语：他认了什么罪？</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-01-10T18:40:31.850Z
in fact 他认什么错 does not seem to exist either although 他认了什么罪？ does exist (错 being considered an adjective in this case?)
user6065
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-01-10T17:56:53.013Z
2015-01-10T18:33:55.590Z
2015-01-10T18:33:55.590Z
user6065
<pre><code>虽然是坑爹了，但是认错态度很好。
(He got his father in trouble, but it's good for him to admit his bad attitude.)
</code></pre>

<p>I see the verb 认错 a VO verb(verb-object).</p>

<p>So shouldn't it be something like this as follow?</p>

<pre><code>虽然是坑爹了，但是认他的态度的错很好。（认 Object(his bad attitude) 错）
</code></pre>

<p>I gave my Chinese friend this sentence with the verb separated, but she said that sounds a  little weird.</p>

<p>I'd like to know what I am missing here.</p>

<p>Thank you so much in advance.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-01-10T07:35:32.590Z
1. '认他的态度的错', not *a little* weird, but *very* weird -- though comprehensible and indeed grammatically correct. I think the problem is most Chinese even don't realize 认错 is a VO verb. I treat this kind of usage as "language intuition", and I'd like to see if anyone can provide a grammatical explanation. 2. '坑爹', recently it becomes an Internet slang, meaning "entrapping me". Probably the translation "got his father in trouble" is wrong.
Stan
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-01-10T07:49:07.093Z
@Stan Thanks. I appreciate you for the great explanation of 坑爹
Dean Seo
<grammar>
When not to split up the VO verb?
# When not to split up the VO verb?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2015-01-10)

虽然是坑爹了，但是认错态度很好。
(He got his father in trouble, but it's good for him to admit his bad attitude.)

I see the verb 认错 a VO verb(verb-object).
So shouldn't it be something like this as follow?
虽然是坑爹了，但是认他的态度的错很好。（认 Object(his bad attitude) 错）

I gave my Chinese friend this sentence with the verb separated, but she said that sounds a  little weird.
I'd like to know what I am missing here.
Thank you so much in advance.

**Tags:** grammar
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: 1. '认他的态度的错', not *a little* weird, but *very* weird -- though comprehensible and indeed grammatically correct. I think the problem is most Chinese even don't realize 认错 is a VO verb. I treat this kind of usage as "language intuition", and I'd like to see if anyone can provide a grammatical explanation. 2. '坑爹', recently it becomes an Internet slang, meaning "entrapping me". Probably the translation "got his father in trouble" is wrong.  
> **username_0**: @Stan Thanks. I appreciate you for the great explanation of 坑爹  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2015-01-10. Score: 2 | Accepted answer

First, I think that the sentence should be:
虽然是坑爹了，但是认错态度很好。
(He made some mistake, but he had good attitude for admitting his mistake.)

坑爹 means did something wrong, it's none of his father's business,or you can say 他做了不靠谱的事，但是认错态度很好。
Second, 认错态度 means has a good attitude for admitting one's mistake.
Such as:
对于历史，日本没有好的认错态度。
（For history, Japan do not has a good attitude for admitting its mistake ）

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: 答案为什么给扣分了，why was the answer marked down？  
> **username_2**: 可能我只给出解释，没有分析语法.  

---

### Answer by username_3 on 2015-01-10. Score: 2

（Taking for granted that VO－verb means the same as 离合词。） Putting any object as attributive in between the ２ characters （把宾语插在离合词两字中间充当定语）is not the only way of dealing with objects，probably not even the most common way。Some typical examples of object as attributive in between：

婆婆住了四个多月的院。 今天我跑了两个小时的步。这对中年夫妻是去年复的昏。那伙匪徒又绑了谁的架。The attributive in-between case includes attributive w/o 的：你妈给我留了什么话没有？

this method may not be available， except for very simple attributives like 什么，例句：他认什么错 (see 他认了什么罪？ below)

aThe other more common way seems to be fronting object with a preposition as adverbial adjunct （用介词把宾语提到前面充当状语，这些介词包括“和、给、为、向、跟”等）e.g.他们很有礼貌地向我们行礼。可以请你为我们照一张相吗？

６ of preceding examples are from <http://forum.swissinfo.ch/viewtopic.php?f=73&t=36685>

＂现代汉语离合词用法词典＂does not include ＂认错＂ but has ＂认真＂ and ＂认罪＂：Examples of 离用法 （excluding well known 了，过，着 in between， only last 例句 may be relevant）

认真：＂认＂后带补语：人家开玩笑的，你怎么就认起真来
了？

认罪：＂认＂后带补语：他就没认过一次罪。
＂罪＂提到＂认＂前：他连罪都不认，怎么能说他态度好。
＂罪＂前带定语：他认了什么罪？

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: in fact 他认什么错 does not seem to exist either although 他认了什么罪？ does exist (错 being considered an adjective in this case?)  

---

