<p><strong>EDIT:</strong></p>
<p>blackgreen's answer reminded me that the noun in “Noun + Adj + Adj + 的” is not the subject of a [SVO] sentence but the topic of a [topic + comment] sentence.</p>
<p>There are two ways to interpret which is the topic in 他脸红红的</p>
<ol>
<li><p>[他(的)脸 (topic)] [红红的 (comment)] = [his face (topic)] [is very red (comment)]</p>
</li>
<li><p>[他 (topic)] [脸红红的 (comment)] = [he (topic)] [is red-faced (comment)]</p>
</li>
</ol>
<p>Either way, 的 is acting as an adjective marker that marks 红红 as an adjective. and the 是 (is) between the topic and the comment is omitted</p>
<p>As for the rest of the explanation, I cannot explain it better than blackgreen did, so I am not going to try.</p>
<p>Different example:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>[關羽的脸 (topic)][(是)红红的 (comment)] = [Guan Yu's face (topic)][(is) very red (comment)]</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>[關羽 (topic)][脸红红的 (comment)] = [Guan Yu (topic)][(is) red-faced (comment)]</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Example of using 红红的 in SVO sentences:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>[關羽][有] [一張红红的脸]
[Guan Yu (S)] [has (V)] [a very red face (O)]</p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-07-09T16:59:46.453Z
You provided an interesting explanation to this topic [here](https://chinese.stackexchange.com/a/36609/12003)
blackgreen
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-07-09T02:26:03.720Z
2020-07-09T13:43:55.177Z
2020-07-09T13:43:55.177Z
Tang Ho
<blockquote>
<p>Why is there a 的 in reduplication of adjectives following structure 3?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The sentence follows the <em>topic-comment structure</em>. We can show the boundaries of topic and comment as follows:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>你的脸 / 红红的。</p>
</blockquote>
<p>红红 in practice is still <strong>one</strong> adjective, even if the character is doubled.  The 的 after 红红 simply works as an adjective marker, signaling that preceding phrase has an attributive function, regardless of the duplication.</p>
<hr />
<blockquote>
<p>Structure 3 would connect two nouns (precisely, the same noun) without using 是 (structure 1). Is this 是 implied?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It is not <em>implied</em>, but it is also another way to express the same sentence:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>你的脸是红红的。</p>
</blockquote>
<p>We could also have 是 if the meaning of the sentence is to put emphasis on the adjective, according to the <a href="https://chinese.stackexchange.com/questions/10492/when-should-i-use-the-%e6%98%af-%e7%9a%84-construction">是～的 structure</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>A：我觉得你脸有点红</p>
<p>B: 不红啊</p>
<p>A: 你脸是红红的 (emphasis)</p>
</blockquote>
<hr>
<blockquote>
<p>On the other hand, if there was no 的 in structure 3, we would have Noun + Adj + Adj, which is the common simple &quot;noun + adjective&quot; sentences with two adjectives</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I believe you are mistaken here. As I said, 红红 is still <strong>one</strong> attributive phrase. The &quot;Noun + Adj.&quot; construction that you quote relates to predicative adjectives that <em>need an intensifier like 很</em>. Doubled adjectives instead don't use intensifiers, that semantics is already conveyed by the doubling. Because of this, double adjectives can't be expressed in this form:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strike>你脸红红。</strike></p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-07-09T13:43:52.490Z
"Technically it needs a comma, but this is often omitted in writing: 你的脸，红红的。 " Sorry, but I don't think 你的脸红红的 omitted a comma there. 你的脸，红红的 standing alone looks so wrong to me. The comma shouldn't be there. Do you have any authoritive documents to support your statement?
dan
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-07-09T14:01:17.420Z
I found this in Charles Li - Mandarin Chinese. A functional reference grammar: *a topic can be separated from the rest of the sentence (called the comment) by a pause or by one of the pause particles - a (or its phonetic variant ya), me, ne or ba - although the use of the pause or the pause particle is optional. [...] [Pause particles], however, including the simple pause, are not necessary. A cursory survey of Mandarin speech suggests that they are not commonly used at all. There also dialect variations in terms of the acceptability of some of the topic markers given in sentence.*
Puco4
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-07-09T18:48:16.957Z
@Puco4 Yeah, it's ok to put 他的脸呢...红红的. "..." stands for the thinking process. The pause is used when the speaker is thinking of a way to describe it/comment it. The simple pause in the article, in my opinion, is usually "…" or "……", not a comma because a comma isn't long enough to convey this thinking process'. This might a writing style thing.
dan
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-07-09T19:15:58.823Z
@Puco4 Adding 是 would change the meaning a bit.  I have addressed that in my answer. You can take out 你的 if that could help you understand. [脸]红红的.
dan
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-07-09T19:17:31.123Z
It is probably also ok to put 她的脸呢，红红的。 她的脸吧，红红的。 她的脸么，红红的。It looks like with 呢，吧 or 么，the comma is valid. It might be okay to put 他的脸，红红的 or 他的脸…红红的 depending on what the writer think the pause should be according to the context. This probably makes more sense when it's used in a quote e. g. 他回忆道: "她的脸么，红红的". Standing alone 她的脸，红红的 without context, as I saw it first, doesn't looks quite right. I hope I wouldn't have added a confusion here. Sorry about that!
dan
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-07-09T23:09:12.580Z
@Puco4 There is no grammar difference between 你的脸很红 and 你的脸红红的.  红红的 acts the same as 很红.
dan
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-07-11T22:29:51.197Z
( @dan and blackgreen) I just rewrote the answer to clarify my confusion. The problem was not what was the function of 的 but where was the verb or where was my grammatical misinterpretation of the sentence. I really believe now the verb 是 is implied and omitted in the sentence. Sorry for the inconveniences.
Puco4
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-07-12T02:20:37.510Z
@Puco4 Then you might need to find a decent grammar book for it.  blackgreen might suggest you one.  I don't have any handy.
dan
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-07-12T08:45:14.003Z
@dan I have already looked some books searching for this answer (in particular, *Claudia Ross, Jing-heng Sheng Ma - Modern Mandarin Chinese Grammar* and *Charles N. Li, Sandra A. Thompson - Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar*). However, I could not manage to find the answer to this question. Now I am planning to read them in depth so I can grasp better some grammar points.
Puco4
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-07-12T08:50:20.710Z
@Puco4 please note that if you completely rewrite your question, remove original examples, etc. you invalidate all answers that people put effort into. Now answers from me, Tang Ho and Pedroski make no sense. (Dan rewrite his). It makes it harder to curate the site and other people who come across your question will have trouble understanding what's going on. The Q&A format of this site is designed around helping everybody, not only yourself.
blackgreen
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-07-12T09:04:12.030Z
@blackgreen I am indeed trying to provide a good explanation for other people. I found the original question didn't focus clearly on the point and could be confusing, so very few people could learn something from it. Anyway, I just linked in an edit the original post, so your answers still make sense. However, currently I am not satisfied with the explanation of the structure of the sentence being a topic-comment and not requiring a verb (because it is indeed a complete sentence). That's why I couldn't left this answer as the accepted answer.
Puco4
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-07-12T09:14:57.700Z
@Puco4 I don't care about my answer being accepted or not. I'm just asking you to not edit your questions over and over. In the timeline there are 10 edits already, including a rewrite. Other people who come across your question won't look at its history, to figure out what the answers are about. If you have more doubts about something, **open a new question**. That is totally fine. It's a learning process. Opening the new question has also the added benefit that you have to clearly state what your new doubt is, and that makes it easier for others to help you.
blackgreen
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-07-12T09:20:35.220Z
I believe it is actually the same question with a clearer focus. I already asked again in a [new question](https://chinese.stackexchange.com/q/40005/25265) but then I found it was indeed the same question which I did not understand completely. I also asked in [the meta](https://chinese.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1778/25265) how should I address this problem. There they suggested editing the question linking to the original question. Anyway, my motivation was to make a post helpful for other users, and the previous question I believe it was not.
Puco4
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-07-09T09:48:11.190Z
2020-07-09T14:11:36.087Z
2020-07-09T14:11:36.087Z
blackgreen
<p>If you want understand the Chinese grammar for this use of 的, then this dictionary definition would help:</p>
<blockquote>
<ol>
<li>用在作定语的词或短语后面。</li>
</ol>
<p>(1)表示对中心语的领属关系，对事物的性质、属性、范围等加以限定</p>
<p>我的书 / 镀金的首饰 / 幸福的童年。</p>
<p>(2)<strong>表示对中心语加以描写</strong>(it's used to describe the main(central) word, usually a noun/pronoun.)</p>
<p><em>蓝蓝的天 / 愁眉苦脸的样子</em>。</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In practice, adj+adj+的 structure is widely used, so you can take it as a fixed structure.  The structure is a <em>vivid/cutie/lively/etc</em> way to express &quot;<strong>quite adj.</strong>&quot; E. g. 他的个子高高的 means 他的个子很高，but the former sounds <em>cutie</em> and the latter is just normal or plain.</p>
<p>And the structure has nothing to do with 是... 的..  structure.</p>
<p>他的脸红红的 vs 他的脸是红红的，there's a bit of difference between the two. With 是, the sentence becomes more <em>factual</em>.  他的脸红红的 is more <em>descriptive</em>.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-07-09T10:41:59.570Z
@Puco4 I tried, but it's not a word for word. Hope you can get a gist of it.
dan
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-07-09T11:20:02.957Z
@dan interesting explanation about factual vs. descriptive, +1'ed
blackgreen
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-07-09T10:28:29.687Z
2020-07-09T10:38:22.327Z
2020-07-09T10:38:22.327Z
dan
<p>Really strange that as a Chinese I found this grammer never met before. Please forget your &quot;nonce + adj + adj&quot; form. This is just an eliptical sentence.</p>
<p>To make this simple, you should know a <code>basic sentence</code> structure:</p>
<p><code>主语</code>(subject) + <code>谓语</code>(predicate) + <code>宾语</code> (object)</p>
<p>so:</p>
<ul>
<li><code>他的儿子高高的</code>:    <code>他的儿子</code>(主)  + (省略了 <code>是</code> 这个谓语) +  <code>高高的</code> (宾语)</li>
<li>equivalent Chinese:  His son <code>is</code> very tall.</li>
</ul>
<p>and:</p>
<ul>
<li><code>小猫白白的</code>:       <code>小猫</code>(主)  + (省略了 <code>是</code> 这个谓语) + <code>白白的</code> (宾语)</li>
<li>equivalent English: The cat <code>is</code> white.</li>
</ul>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-07-12T09:06:23.977Z
@dan why do you believe this answer is wrong? If you want to provide an alternative explanation for where is the verb in this structure? (Maybe you could keep your old answer in an edit, I think it is useful)
Puco4
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-07-12T01:19:00.513Z
2020-07-12T01:19:00.513Z
Siwei
<p>你的 is an adjective.</p>
<p>你的脸 = your face<br />
红红的 = very red</p>
<p>你脸红红的像一颗苹果！</p>
<p>My advice: don't take the blatherings of Aunty Wiki too seriously!</p>
<blockquote>
<p>In Chinese, possession is marked with the particle 的 (de), placed
after the &quot;owner&quot; noun or noun phrase.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>你圆圆的脸晒得红红的。下次散步的话，戴上你去年买的斗笠。</p>
<p>的 does not equate to 's. The genitive is always an adjective.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-07-09T08:02:28.310Z
In my opinion, 你的 is not an adjective, but a `Noun 1 + 的 (+ Noun 2)` [expressing possession](https://resources.allsetlearning.com/chinese/grammar/Expressing_possession_with_%22de%22).
Puco4
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-07-08T23:52:55.947Z
2020-07-09T12:13:08.220Z
2020-07-09T12:13:08.220Z
Pedroski
<ol>
<li><p>I understand the <code>的</code> from the structure:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><code>Adj + 的</code></p>
<p>Example: 高的。</p>
</blockquote>
<p>as attaching the <code>Adj</code> to an <em>omitted Noun</em>. This omitted Noun can either be a <em>general noun</em> such as &quot;one/s&quot; (高的 can mean <em>the tall one</em>) or an <em>implied Noun</em> from the context (if the topic is <em>a boy</em>, 高的 could mean <em>a tall boy</em>).</p>
</li>
<li><p>I have come across the following structure for <a href="https://resources.allsetlearning.com/chinese/grammar/Reduplication_of_adjectives" rel="nofollow noreferrer">reduplication of adjectives</a>:</p>
<p><code>Noun + Adj + Adj + 的</code>.</p>
<p>For example:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>他的儿子高高的。</p>
<p>His son is tall.</p>
</blockquote>
</li>
</ol>
<p><strong>Question:</strong> Because <code>Adj + Adj + 的</code> is attached to an omitted noun, it becomes a <em>nominal phrase</em> and grammatically <code>Noun + Adj + Adj + 的</code> is equal to <code>Noun + Nominal Phrase</code>. Where is the <em>verb</em> and <em>predicate</em> in this sentence? Is the verb copula 是 <em>omitted but implied</em> in connecting the nouns：<code>Noun +（是）+ Adj + Adj + 的</code>？From the example: 他的儿子（是）高高的？</p>
<hr />
<p><strong>Edit:</strong> My <a href="https://chinese.stackexchange.com/revisions/39997/5">original post</a> addressed the question focusing on the function of 的. However, the question of why 的 was necessary in reduplication of adjectives, instead of <code>(Adv of degree) + Adj + Adj</code>, was already asked in <a href="https://chinese.stackexchange.com/q/36608/25265">Adverbs of degree with reduplicated adjective phrases?</a></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-07-08T22:03:40.820Z
see https://chinese.stackexchange.com/questions/35487/reduplication-of-adjectives-like-%e5%a4%a7
Tang Ho
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-07-09T01:07:08.750Z
Also see this https://chinese.stackexchange.com/questions/39229/when-does-an-adjective-require-%e7%9a%84-to-describe-a-noun/39232#39232
Tang Ho
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-07-09T17:00:07.147Z
Does this answer your question? [Adverbs of degree with reduplicated adjective phrases?](https://chinese.stackexchange.com/questions/36608/adverbs-of-degree-with-reduplicated-adjective-phrases)
blackgreen
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-07-10T02:33:30.983Z
You can edit your question to include your last comment (and the link to the related question).
fefe
<grammar><usage><sentence-structure><verbs>
Where is the verb in reduplication of adjectives "Noun + Adj + Adj + 的"?
# Where is the verb in reduplication of adjectives "Noun + Adj + Adj + 的"?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2020-07-08)

1. I understand the `的` from the structure:

   > `Adj + 的`
   >
   > Example: 高的。

   as attaching the `Adj` to an *omitted Noun*. This omitted Noun can either be a *general noun* such as "one/s" (高的 can mean *the tall one*) or an *implied Noun* from the context (if the topic is *a boy*, 高的 could mean *a tall boy*).
2. I have come across the following structure for [reduplication of adjectives](https://resources.allsetlearning.com/chinese/grammar/Reduplication_of_adjectives):

   `Noun + Adj + Adj + 的`.

   For example:

   > 他的儿子高高的。
   >
   > His son is tall.

**Question:** Because `Adj + Adj + 的` is attached to an omitted noun, it becomes a *nominal phrase* and grammatically `Noun + Adj + Adj + 的` is equal to `Noun + Nominal Phrase`. Where is the *verb* and *predicate* in this sentence? Is the verb copula 是 *omitted but implied* in connecting the nouns：`Noun +（是）+ Adj + Adj + 的`？From the example: 他的儿子（是）高高的？

---

**Edit:** My [original post](https://chinese.stackexchange.com/revisions/39997/5) addressed the question focusing on the function of 的. However, the question of why 的 was necessary in reduplication of adjectives, instead of `(Adv of degree) + Adj + Adj`, was already asked in [Adverbs of degree with reduplicated adjective phrases?](https://chinese.stackexchange.com/q/36608/25265)

**Tags:** grammar, usage, sentence-structure, verbs

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: see https://chinese.stackexchange.com/questions/35487/reduplication-of-adjectives-like-%e5%a4%a7  
> **username_1**: Also see this https://chinese.stackexchange.com/questions/39229/when-does-an-adjective-require-%e7%9a%84-to-describe-a-noun/39232#39232  
> **username_2**: Does this answer your question? [Adverbs of degree with reduplicated adjective phrases?](https://chinese.stackexchange.com/questions/36608/adverbs-of-degree-with-reduplicated-adjective-phrases)  
> **username_3**: You can edit your question to include your last comment (and the link to the related question).  

---

## 5 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2020-07-09. Score: 2 | Accepted answer

**EDIT:**

username_2's answer reminded me that the noun in “Noun + Adj + Adj + 的” is not the subject of a [SVO] sentence but the topic of a [topic + comment] sentence.

There are two ways to interpret which is the topic in 他脸红红的

1. [他(的)脸 (topic)] [红红的 (comment)] = [his face (topic)] [is very red (comment)]
2. [他 (topic)] [脸红红的 (comment)] = [he (topic)] [is red-faced (comment)]

Either way, 的 is acting as an adjective marker that marks 红红 as an adjective. and the 是 (is) between the topic and the comment is omitted

As for the rest of the explanation, I cannot explain it better than username_2 did, so I am not going to try.

Different example:

> [關羽的脸 (topic)][(是)红红的 (comment)] = [Guan Yu's face (topic)][(is) very red (comment)]

> [關羽 (topic)][脸红红的 (comment)] = [Guan Yu (topic)][(is) red-faced (comment)]

Example of using 红红的 in SVO sentences:

> [關羽][有] [一張红红的脸]
> [Guan Yu (S)] [has (V)] [a very red face (O)]

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: You provided an interesting explanation to this topic [here](https://chinese.stackexchange.com/a/36609/12003)  

---

### Answer by username_2 on 2020-07-09. Score: 2

> Why is there a 的 in reduplication of adjectives following structure 3?

The sentence follows the *topic-comment structure*. We can show the boundaries of topic and comment as follows:

> 你的脸 / 红红的。

红红 in practice is still **one** adjective, even if the character is doubled. The 的 after 红红 simply works as an adjective marker, signaling that preceding phrase has an attributive function, regardless of the duplication.

---

> Structure 3 would connect two nouns (precisely, the same noun) without using 是 (structure 1). Is this 是 implied?

It is not *implied*, but it is also another way to express the same sentence:

> 你的脸是红红的。

We could also have 是 if the meaning of the sentence is to put emphasis on the adjective, according to the [是～的 structure](https://chinese.stackexchange.com/questions/10492/when-should-i-use-the-%e6%98%af-%e7%9a%84-construction):

> A：我觉得你脸有点红
>
> B: 不红啊
>
> A: 你脸是红红的 (emphasis)

---

> On the other hand, if there was no 的 in structure 3, we would have Noun + Adj + Adj, which is the common simple "noun + adjective" sentences with two adjectives

I believe you are mistaken here. As I said, 红红 is still **one** attributive phrase. The "Noun + Adj." construction that you quote relates to predicative adjectives that *need an intensifier like 很*. Doubled adjectives instead don't use intensifiers, that semantics is already conveyed by the doubling. Because of this, double adjectives can't be expressed in this form:

> 你脸红红。

> **Comments:**
> **username_4**: "Technically it needs a comma, but this is often omitted in writing: 你的脸，红红的。 " Sorry, but I don't think 你的脸红红的 omitted a comma there. 你的脸，红红的 standing alone looks so wrong to me. The comma shouldn't be there. Do you have any authoritive documents to support your statement?  
> **username_0**: I found this in Charles Li - Mandarin Chinese. A functional reference grammar: *a topic can be separated from the rest of the sentence (called the comment) by a pause or by one of the pause particles - a (or its phonetic variant ya), me, ne or ba - although the use of the pause or the pause particle is optional. [...] [Pause particles], however, including the simple pause, are not necessary. A cursory survey of Mandarin speech suggests that they are not commonly used at all. There also dialect variations in terms of the acceptability of some of the topic markers given in sentence.*  
> **username_4**: @username_0 Yeah, it's ok to put 他的脸呢...红红的. "..." stands for the thinking process. The pause is used when the speaker is thinking of a way to describe it/comment it. The simple pause in the article, in my opinion, is usually "…" or "……", not a comma because a comma isn't long enough to convey this thinking process'. This might a writing style thing.  
> **username_4**: @username_0 Adding 是 would change the meaning a bit.  I have addressed that in my answer. You can take out 你的 if that could help you understand. [脸]红红的.  
> **username_4**: It is probably also ok to put 她的脸呢，红红的。 她的脸吧，红红的。 她的脸么，红红的。It looks like with 呢，吧 or 么，the comma is valid. It might be okay to put 他的脸，红红的 or 他的脸…红红的 depending on what the writer think the pause should be according to the context. This probably makes more sense when it's used in a quote e. g. 他回忆道: "她的脸么，红红的". Standing alone 她的脸，红红的 without context, as I saw it first, doesn't looks quite right. I hope I wouldn't have added a confusion here. Sorry about that!  
> **username_4**: @username_0 There is no grammar difference between 你的脸很红 and 你的脸红红的.  红红的 acts the same as 很红.  
> **username_0**: ( @username_4 and username_2) I just rewrote the answer to clarify my confusion. The problem was not what was the function of 的 but where was the verb or where was my grammatical misinterpretation of the sentence. I really believe now the verb 是 is implied and omitted in the sentence. Sorry for the inconveniences.  
> **username_4**: @username_0 Then you might need to find a decent grammar book for it.  username_2 might suggest you one.  I don't have any handy.  
> **username_0**: @username_4 I have already looked some books searching for this answer (in particular, *Claudia Ross, Jing-heng Sheng Ma - Modern Mandarin Chinese Grammar* and *Charles N. Li, Sandra A. Thompson - Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar*). However, I could not manage to find the answer to this question. Now I am planning to read them in depth so I can grasp better some grammar points.  
> **username_2**: @username_0 please note that if you completely rewrite your question, remove original examples, etc. you invalidate all answers that people put effort into. Now answers from me, username_1 Ho and username_6 make no sense. (Dan rewrite his). It makes it harder to curate the site and other people who come across your question will have trouble understanding what's going on. The Q&A format of this site is designed around helping everybody, not only yourself.  
> **username_0**: @username_2 I am indeed trying to provide a good explanation for other people. I found the original question didn't focus clearly on the point and could be confusing, so very few people could learn something from it. Anyway, I just linked in an edit the original post, so your answers still make sense. However, currently I am not satisfied with the explanation of the structure of the sentence being a topic-comment and not requiring a verb (because it is indeed a complete sentence). That's why I couldn't left this answer as the accepted answer.  
> **username_2**: @username_0 I don't care about my answer being accepted or not. I'm just asking you to not edit your questions over and over. In the timeline there are 10 edits already, including a rewrite. Other people who come across your question won't look at its history, to figure out what the answers are about. If you have more doubts about something, **open a new question**. That is totally fine. It's a learning process. Opening the new question has also the added benefit that you have to clearly state what your new doubt is, and that makes it easier for others to help you.  
> **username_0**: I believe it is actually the same question with a clearer focus. I already asked again in a [new question](https://chinese.stackexchange.com/q/40005/25265) but then I found it was indeed the same question which I did not understand completely. I also asked in [the meta](https://chinese.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1778/25265) how should I address this problem. There they suggested editing the question linking to the original question. Anyway, my motivation was to make a post helpful for other users, and the previous question I believe it was not.  

---

### Answer by username_4 on 2020-07-09. Score: 2

If you want understand the Chinese grammar for this use of 的, then this dictionary definition would help:

> 1. 用在作定语的词或短语后面。
>
> (1)表示对中心语的领属关系，对事物的性质、属性、范围等加以限定
>
> 我的书 / 镀金的首饰 / 幸福的童年。
>
> (2)**表示对中心语加以描写**(it's used to describe the main(central) word, usually a noun/pronoun.)
>
> *蓝蓝的天 / 愁眉苦脸的样子*。

In practice, adj+adj+的 structure is widely used, so you can take it as a fixed structure. The structure is a *vivid/cutie/lively/etc* way to express "**quite adj.**" E. g. 他的个子高高的 means 他的个子很高，but the former sounds *cutie* and the latter is just normal or plain.

And the structure has nothing to do with 是... 的.. structure.

他的脸红红的 vs 他的脸是红红的，there's a bit of difference between the two. With 是, the sentence becomes more *factual*. 他的脸红红的 is more *descriptive*.

> **Comments:**
> **username_4**: @username_0 I tried, but it's not a word for word. Hope you can get a gist of it.  
> **username_2**: @username_4 interesting explanation about factual vs. descriptive, +1'ed  

---

### Answer by username_5 on 2020-07-12. Score: 0

Really strange that as a Chinese I found this grammer never met before. Please forget your "nonce + adj + adj" form. This is just an eliptical sentence.

To make this simple, you should know a `basic sentence` structure:

`主语`(subject) + `谓语`(predicate) + `宾语` (object)

so:

* `他的儿子高高的`: `他的儿子`(主) + (省略了 `是` 这个谓语) + `高高的` (宾语)
* equivalent Chinese: His son `is` very tall.

and:

* `小猫白白的`: `小猫`(主) + (省略了 `是` 这个谓语) + `白白的` (宾语)
* equivalent English: The cat `is` white.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: @username_4 why do you believe this answer is wrong? If you want to provide an alternative explanation for where is the verb in this structure? (Maybe you could keep your old answer in an edit, I think it is useful)  

---

### Answer by username_6 on 2020-07-08. Score: -1

你的 is an adjective.

你的脸 = your face  
红红的 = very red

你脸红红的像一颗苹果！

My advice: don't take the blatherings of Aunty Wiki too seriously!

> In Chinese, possession is marked with the particle 的 (de), placed
> after the "owner" noun or noun phrase.

你圆圆的脸晒得红红的。下次散步的话，戴上你去年买的斗笠。

的 does not equate to 's. The genitive is always an adjective.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: In my opinion, 你的 is not an adjective, but a `Noun 1 + 的 (+ Noun 2)` [expressing possession](https://resources.allsetlearning.com/chinese/grammar/Expressing_possession_with_%22de%22).  

---

