<p>No.3 <code>德里克.帕腓特有一个极端地空前绝后的假设……</code> also doesn't work well in Chinese. Although it can be reasonably analyzed, but it is not a usual way to say. The reason is like the one you gave for English.</p>

<p>No.1 <code>德里克.帕腓特有一个极端得空前绝后的假设……</code> can even have two ways to understand:</p>

<ol>
<li><p><code>空前绝后</code> is describing <code>极端</code></p></li>
<li><p>Both describing <code>假设</code>. This may sound strange but it is more obvious with another example:<code>恐怖得可以吓死人的某物</code>(Something terrifying enough to scare people to die). Both <code>恐怖</code> and <code>可以吓死人</code> are describing the noun. </p></li>
</ol>

<p>So, with the context, it could mean 'unprecedentedly extreme hypothesis' or 'hypothesis which is extreme enough to call it unprecedented'</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-02-27T19:57:54.913Z
2017-02-27T19:57:54.913Z
InQβ
<p>The answer provided by @songyuanyao seems to be correct for me.</p>

<p>I'll show you how to Let's use x-bar theory to decompose the sentence.</p>

<p>Sentence = 德里克.帕腓特有一个极端得空前绝后的假设
Sentence = Noun Phrase(德里克.帕腓特) + Verb Phrase(有一个极端得空前绝后的假设)</p>

<ul>
<li><p>Noun Phrase(德里克.帕腓特) = Noun(德里克.帕腓特)</p></li>
<li><p>Verb Phrase(有一个极端得空前绝后的假设) = Verb(有) + Noun Phrase(一个极端得空前绝后的假设)</p>

<ul>
<li><p>Noun Phrase(一个极端得空前绝后的假设) = Determiner(一个) + Adjective Phrase (极端得空前绝后的) + Noun(假设)</p>

<ul>
<li>Adjective Phrase(极端得空前绝后的) = Adjective(极端) + Complement Phrase(得空前绝后) + Adjective Preposition(的)

<ul>
<li>Complement Phrase(得空前绝后)= Complement Preposition(得) + Complement(空前绝后)</li>
</ul></li>
</ul></li>
</ul></li>
</ul>

<p>In serious writing, you should never misuse 的,地 and 得.</p>

<p>的 is used between an adjective phrase and a noun phrase which the adjective phrase is describing.</p>

<p>地 is used between an adverbial phrase and a verb phrase which the adverbial phrase is describing. </p>

<p>得 is used between a noun phrase or a verb phrase and the complement which is describing the previous phrase.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-02-26T08:45:43.483Z
Thanks, but, x-bar theory went out of fashion years ago, why do you think it says anything at all about how language works? How are you defining the concepts you use? If a phrase contains a verb and a noun, is it a verb phrase or a noun phrase? If a complement contains an adjective like 空， why isn't it an adjective phrase? If it is an adjective phrase, why call it a complement?
Pedroski
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-02-28T06:51:35.837Z
x-bar theory was never outdated but revised by chomsky and other researchers. I use x-bar theory because it nicely shows the structure of a sentence and uses very similar terminology as in traditional syntax.
Lucius Hu
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-02-28T06:53:23.077Z
x-bar theory works as it explains things in the way I prefer. As I mentioned in the answer, I was using this framework to decompose the sentence. The advocates of x-bar theory have other theoretical implications, but that's not related to me and my answer here.
Lucius Hu
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-02-28T06:56:31.543Z
In a sentence with either SVO structure or SOV structure. S is the noun phrase and VO/OV is the verb phrase.
Lucius Hu
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-02-28T06:59:35.887Z
空前绝后 is an idiom and it's an smallest unit in the sentence. It's part of speech is a noun and with 的 or 地 it becomes adjective/adverb. But 空 here is a verb. 空前绝后=使前空,使后绝, which is 使动 in classical Chinese.
Lucius Hu
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-02-28T07:02:43.560Z
In modern linguistics, complements could mean a predicative, subject or object. In the broadest definition, a complement makes the meaning of a phrase/sentence complete.
Lucius Hu
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-02-28T23:24:03.187Z
有一个极端得空前绝后的假设 contains 有 and 假设。 Why do you call it a verb phrase but not a noun phrase? Where are the limits of a phrase?
Pedroski
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-03-01T02:42:44.420Z
This is a predicative which consists of a verb phrase and noun phrase. The head of the predicative is the verb and the noun is the complement to the predicative verb.
Lucius Hu
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-03-01T03:43:11.680Z
So a noun phrase is a complement phrase? In your answer you said  "Complement Phrase(得空前绝后)" and "Noun Phrase(一个极端得空前绝后的假设)" If you do not clearly define what you are talking about, we have the 'Mad Hatter' situation. He said: "A word may mean anything I want it to mean."
Pedroski
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-03-01T03:50:21.330Z
In the application of x-bar on English grammar, a x could be a noun phrase, verb phrase, adjective phrase or preposition phrase. Preposition phrase to a noun is usually called complement. Specifically in Chinese syntax and grammar teaching, it's more frequently called 补语 (complement) rather than 介词词组(prepositoin phrase). That's why I called Complement Phrase(得空前绝后).
Lucius Hu
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-03-01T03:51:43.540Z
But also as I mentioned, a complement in a broader sense could be any phrase that completes the meaning of the head of a phrase.
Lucius Hu
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-03-01T08:58:54.540Z
Sorry, I do not mean to criticise you personally, but I think x-bar and 'modern linguisitics' have completely lost their way. If a complement phrase 'completes the meaning', well, any phrase may be a complement phrase, in fact anything at all which 'completes the meaning'. All words help to complete the meaning, so this is the same as saying all words are complement phrases. How is that helpful or useful? Why do you then further distinguish other phrases? If you can rigidly define the concepts you wish to apply, so that any person can follow your definitions and identify these phrases, good!
Pedroski
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-03-02T21:03:44.677Z
You need to differentiate two different usage of "complement". One is the modern linguistic usage that means any parts of speech that complete the meaning of the head of a phrase. So you're right that it could be verb phrase, noun phrase or propositional phrase. The x-bar theory (and certain other frameworks) is decomposing a sentence/phrase to heads and complements, which helps to understand the dependency/function of different parts of speech.
Lucius Hu
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-03-02T21:07:44.410Z
Another usage of complement is in the syntax/grammar study of modern Mandarin that prepositional phrase modifying a noun phrase are called 补语 complement. First note that mainstream Chinese grammar only uses the concept of prepositional phrase and preposition, which and postposition and circumposition are three types of adposition. Secondly, complement could be any part of speech in modern linguistics. But it strictly means the complement for noun phrase in Chinese grammar study.
Lucius Hu
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-03-02T21:10:10.410Z
All the confusions don't arise because of the innate controversy of so-called modern linguistics, which surely is imperfect but not because of it's inadequacy of analysing Chinese language,  but arise because Chinese grammar study still stops in late 19th to 20th century that it occasionally uses old terminology and is slow to adopt new linguistics frameworks.
Lucius Hu
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-02-26T03:39:28.110Z
2017-02-26T03:39:28.110Z
Lucius Hu
<p>(1) 极端得空前绝后的 = unprecedentedly extreme</p>

<p>(2) 极端的，空前绝后的 = extreme and unprecedented</p>

<p>It depends which you want to express. (They seem similar to me.)</p>

<p>I'd say (3) is unacceptable. <code>极端地</code> is an adverb that modifies a verb, but there is no verb.</p>

<p>What I said corresponds with my memory of high-school textbook. Keep in mind that Chinese usage is far from uniform, and don't be surprised if you find something different from your books. Purist will hold that (3) is wrong, but many laypeople might be okay with that.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-03-02T02:35:27.760Z
"极端地空前绝后" = extremely unprecedented .... and it does not make sense.  do we have "溫和地空前絕後"?
Henry HO
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-03-02T03:48:17.213Z
@HenryHo I do agree 极端地空前绝后 does not make sense. So....?
Violapterin
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-03-02T11:01:57.283Z
"極端地空前絕後" is grammatically correct, but it is redundant because "空前絕後" itself carries the meaning of "極端".
Henry HO
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-02-27T16:06:17.980Z
2017-02-27T16:06:17.980Z
Violapterin
<p>I'm not too sure what this 得 is doing here. If I rewrite as in 2. or 3. is that a) correct and b) still the same meaning?</p>

<ol>
<li>德里克.帕腓特有一个极端得空前绝后的假设，。。。。。</li>
<li>德里克.帕腓特有一个极端的,空前绝后的假设，。。。。。</li>
<li>德里克.帕腓特有一个极端地空前绝后的假设，。。。。。</li>
</ol>

<p>Basically, I'm not sure what 空前绝后 is describing. Either 极端 or 假设， or both?</p>

<p>I would translate the phrase as: Derek Parfit presents the extreme（极端） and unprecedented（空前绝后） hypothesis that, </p>

<p>It is not good English to write 'extremely unprecedented'. Either something is unprecedented, or it is not.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-02-26T01:52:43.307Z
空前绝后 is describing 假设.
Whhhhhhhhy
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-03-02T02:35:53.797Z
"极端地空前绝后" = extremely unprecedented .... and it does not make any sense.  do we have "溫和地空前絕後"?
Henry HO
<meaning><word-choice><usage><difference>
Can I rewrite 德里克.帕腓特有一个极端得空前绝后的假设 using 的 or 地 instead of 得？
# Can I rewrite 德里克.帕腓特有一个极端得空前绝后的假设 using 的 or 地 instead of 得？

(Asked by: username_0 on 2017-02-26)

I'm not too sure what this 得 is doing here. If I rewrite as in 2. or 3. is that a) correct and b) still the same meaning?

1. 德里克.帕腓特有一个极端得空前绝后的假设，。。。。。
2. 德里克.帕腓特有一个极端的,空前绝后的假设，。。。。。
3. 德里克.帕腓特有一个极端地空前绝后的假设，。。。。。

Basically, I'm not sure what 空前绝后 is describing. Either 极端 or 假设， or both?

I would translate the phrase as: Derek Parfit presents the extreme（极端） and unprecedented（空前绝后） hypothesis that,

It is not good English to write 'extremely unprecedented'. Either something is unprecedented, or it is not.

**Tags:** meaning, word-choice, usage, difference

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: 空前绝后 is describing 假设.  
> **username_2**: "极端地空前绝后" = extremely unprecedented .... and it does not make any sense.  do we have "溫和地空前絕後"?  

---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2017-02-27. Score: 1

No.3 `德里克.帕腓特有一个极端地空前绝后的假设……` also doesn't work well in Chinese. Although it can be reasonably analyzed, but it is not a usual way to say. The reason is like the one you gave for English.

No.1 `德里克.帕腓特有一个极端得空前绝后的假设……` can even have two ways to understand:

1. `空前绝后` is describing `极端`
2. Both describing `假设`. This may sound strange but it is more obvious with another example:`恐怖得可以吓死人的某物`(Something terrifying enough to scare people to die). Both `恐怖` and `可以吓死人` are describing the noun.

So, with the context, it could mean 'unprecedentedly extreme hypothesis' or 'hypothesis which is extreme enough to call it unprecedented'


---

### Answer by username_4 on 2017-02-26. Score: 1

The answer provided by @songyuanyao seems to be correct for me.

I'll show you how to Let's use x-bar theory to decompose the sentence.

Sentence = 德里克.帕腓特有一个极端得空前绝后的假设
Sentence = Noun Phrase(德里克.帕腓特) + Verb Phrase(有一个极端得空前绝后的假设)

* Noun Phrase(德里克.帕腓特) = Noun(德里克.帕腓特)
* Verb Phrase(有一个极端得空前绝后的假设) = Verb(有) + Noun Phrase(一个极端得空前绝后的假设)

  + Noun Phrase(一个极端得空前绝后的假设) = Determiner(一个) + Adjective Phrase (极端得空前绝后的) + Noun(假设)

    - Adjective Phrase(极端得空前绝后的) = Adjective(极端) + Complement Phrase(得空前绝后) + Adjective Preposition(的)
      * Complement Phrase(得空前绝后)= Complement Preposition(得) + Complement(空前绝后)

In serious writing, you should never misuse 的,地 and 得.

的 is used between an adjective phrase and a noun phrase which the adjective phrase is describing.

地 is used between an adverbial phrase and a verb phrase which the adverbial phrase is describing.

得 is used between a noun phrase or a verb phrase and the complement which is describing the previous phrase.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Thanks, but, x-bar theory went out of fashion years ago, why do you think it says anything at all about how language works? How are you defining the concepts you use? If a phrase contains a verb and a noun, is it a verb phrase or a noun phrase? If a complement contains an adjective like 空， why isn't it an adjective phrase? If it is an adjective phrase, why call it a complement?  
> **username_4**: x-bar theory was never outdated but revised by chomsky and other researchers. I use x-bar theory because it nicely shows the structure of a sentence and uses very similar terminology as in traditional syntax.  
> **username_4**: x-bar theory works as it explains things in the way I prefer. As I mentioned in the answer, I was using this framework to decompose the sentence. The advocates of x-bar theory have other theoretical implications, but that's not related to me and my answer here.  
> **username_4**: In a sentence with either SVO structure or SOV structure. S is the noun phrase and VO/OV is the verb phrase.  
> **username_4**: 空前绝后 is an idiom and it's an smallest unit in the sentence. It's part of speech is a noun and with 的 or 地 it becomes adjective/adverb. But 空 here is a verb. 空前绝后=使前空,使后绝, which is 使动 in classical Chinese.  
> **username_4**: In modern linguistics, complements could mean a predicative, subject or object. In the broadest definition, a complement makes the meaning of a phrase/sentence complete.  
> **username_0**: 有一个极端得空前绝后的假设 contains 有 and 假设。 Why do you call it a verb phrase but not a noun phrase? Where are the limits of a phrase?  
> **username_4**: This is a predicative which consists of a verb phrase and noun phrase. The head of the predicative is the verb and the noun is the complement to the predicative verb.  
> **username_0**: So a noun phrase is a complement phrase? In your answer you said  "Complement Phrase(得空前绝后)" and "Noun Phrase(一个极端得空前绝后的假设)" If you do not clearly define what you are talking about, we have the 'Mad Hatter' situation. He said: "A word may mean anything I want it to mean."  
> **username_4**: In the application of x-bar on English grammar, a x could be a noun phrase, verb phrase, adjective phrase or preposition phrase. Preposition phrase to a noun is usually called complement. Specifically in Chinese syntax and grammar teaching, it's more frequently called 补语 (complement) rather than 介词词组(prepositoin phrase). That's why I called Complement Phrase(得空前绝后).  
> **username_4**: But also as I mentioned, a complement in a broader sense could be any phrase that completes the meaning of the head of a phrase.  
> **username_0**: Sorry, I do not mean to criticise you personally, but I think x-bar and 'modern linguisitics' have completely lost their way. If a complement phrase 'completes the meaning', well, any phrase may be a complement phrase, in fact anything at all which 'completes the meaning'. All words help to complete the meaning, so this is the same as saying all words are complement phrases. How is that helpful or useful? Why do you then further distinguish other phrases? If you can rigidly define the concepts you wish to apply, so that any person can follow your definitions and identify these phrases, good!  
> **username_4**: You need to differentiate two different usage of "complement". One is the modern linguistic usage that means any parts of speech that complete the meaning of the head of a phrase. So you're right that it could be verb phrase, noun phrase or propositional phrase. The x-bar theory (and certain other frameworks) is decomposing a sentence/phrase to heads and complements, which helps to understand the dependency/function of different parts of speech.  
> **username_4**: Another usage of complement is in the syntax/grammar study of modern Mandarin that prepositional phrase modifying a noun phrase are called 补语 complement. First note that mainstream Chinese grammar only uses the concept of prepositional phrase and preposition, which and postposition and circumposition are three types of adposition. Secondly, complement could be any part of speech in modern linguistics. But it strictly means the complement for noun phrase in Chinese grammar study.  
> **username_4**: All the confusions don't arise because of the innate controversy of so-called modern linguistics, which surely is imperfect but not because of it's inadequacy of analysing Chinese language,  but arise because Chinese grammar study still stops in late 19th to 20th century that it occasionally uses old terminology and is slow to adopt new linguistics frameworks.  

---

### Answer by username_5 on 2017-02-27. Score: 0

(1) 极端得空前绝后的 = unprecedentedly extreme

(2) 极端的，空前绝后的 = extreme and unprecedented

It depends which you want to express. (They seem similar to me.)

I'd say (3) is unacceptable. `极端地` is an adverb that modifies a verb, but there is no verb.

What I said corresponds with my memory of high-school textbook. Keep in mind that Chinese usage is far from uniform, and don't be surprised if you find something different from your books. Purist will hold that (3) is wrong, but many laypeople might be okay with that.

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: "极端地空前绝后" = extremely unprecedented .... and it does not make sense.  do we have "溫和地空前絕後"?  
> **username_5**: @HenryHo I do agree 极端地空前绝后 does not make sense. So....?  
> **username_2**: "極端地空前絕後" is grammatically correct, but it is redundant because "空前絕後" itself carries the meaning of "極端".  

---

