<blockquote>
<p>[1. 我们] [2. 挂] [3. 上去] [4. 那幅画] [5. 吧]</p>
<p>[1. subject] [2. verb] [3. directional (verb) complement] [4. object] [5. final particle]</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The problem here is, in Chinese grammar, the object should be inserted between the 'verb' and the 'directional complement'</p>
<p>The following is the correct structure:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>[1. 我们] [2. 挂] [3. 那幅画] [4. 上去] [5. 吧]</p>
<p>[1. subject] [2. verb] [3. object] [4. directional (verb) complement] [5. final particle]</p>
</blockquote>
<p>~</p>
<blockquote>
<p><em>why 我们挂上去那幅画吧。with 上去 is not acceptable, but, if I leave out the 去， 我们挂上那幅画吧。is acceptable. How are they different?</em></p>
</blockquote>
<p>The reason why &quot;我们挂上去那幅画吧&quot; is not acceptable has been explained above.</p>
<ul>
<li>&quot;我们挂上那幅画吧&quot; is not technically incorrect, but the meaning is ambitious. Since the indirect object is omitted, it could mean &quot;我们(在身上)挂上那幅画吧&quot; or &quot;我们(在墙上)挂上那幅画吧&quot;</li>
</ul>
<p>In summary:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Both &quot;我们把那张画儿挂上去吧&quot; and &quot;我们挂那幅画上去吧&quot; are clear and correct</p>
</li>
<li><p>我们挂上去那幅画吧 is grammatically incorrect</p>
</li>
<li><p>我们挂上那幅画吧  is too ambitious, it needs an indirect object</p>
</li>
<li><p><em>我们挂那幅画吧 actually removed the ambiguity, because '挂上' is equally applicable for 'on person' and 'on the wall', while '挂' strongly implied  'to hang (on the wall)'</em></p>
</li>
</ul>
<p>Example of [verb]+ [direct object] +[indirect object]</p>
<blockquote>
<p>In &quot; I give you a toy&quot;,  'you' is the indirect object, and 'toy' is the direct object</p>
<p>similarly, in &quot;我们(在墙上)挂上那幅画吧&quot;, '那幅画' is the direct object, '墙'is the indirect object</p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-05-26T21:26:49.143Z
I am seeing a similarity here between German and Chinese. In German, we have many verbs made of  [directional (verb) complement][verb]. A simple example [hinauf][gehen], hinaufgehen = go up. In a Main Clause the  [directional (verb) complement] is always put at the end of the clause: Ich(I) gehe(go) die Treppe(the stairs) hinauf(up). I go up the stairs.
Pedroski
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-05-26T00:57:20.293Z
2018-05-26T01:06:27.903Z
2020-06-17T09:50:11.587Z
Tang Ho
<p>" 我们挂上那幅画吧"</p>

<p>The point is verb, not 收起, 扔掉 or anything else but 挂上.</p>

<p>我们把那张画儿挂上去.</p>

<p>The point is 那张(not 这张...) or 画(not 照片...).</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-05-26T04:45:10.450Z
2018-05-26T04:45:10.450Z
sfy
<p>These sentences are correct:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>我们把那张画儿挂上去吧。</p>
<p>那张画儿挂在墙上。</p>
<p>把那张画挂在墙上。</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I think the point is the verb 挂. 挂 is usually followed with the location words/phrases, like 在墙上，在xxx, and it's not that natural when it's followed by the direct object, like 画，照片，etc. However, if you want to express you hang something, you might have to use the auxiliary word 把. The structure is 把...挂 (+ location phrases). For example, 把 这张画 挂 在墙上.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-05-26T21:31:22.370Z
"If a Chinese sentence contains this use of 把，it is always possible to alter the sentence and omit 把, but keep the same meaning." Would you agree or disagree?
Pedroski
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-05-26T23:29:38.590Z
@Pedroski I'd say not *always*. But the most idiomatic expression is with 把，it's unlike in English I think.
dan
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-05-26T05:17:40.937Z
2018-05-26T05:17:40.937Z
2020-06-17T09:50:11.587Z
dan
<p>I don’t know how to explain it .if you don’t use 把 that sounds weird .But it does not affect the meaning of the sentence.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-05-26T00:59:17.723Z
2018-05-26T00:59:17.723Z
user19747
<p>On the German Chinese web page <a href="https://dict.leo.org/forum/viewWrongentry.php?idThread=1373913&amp;lang=de&amp;lp=chde" rel="nofollow noreferrer">here</a> there is a question about the use of 把
in 我们把那张画儿挂上去吧。So I thought, just rearrange to 我们挂上去那幅画吧。to try to explain.</p>

<p>However, my friend, 晓云, immediately said: 笨蛋的老外，这样不行！</p>

<p>I asked why, she immediately said, "我们把那张画儿挂上去吧。is how we say it."</p>

<p>"But if I don't use 把？" I asked?</p>

<p>She said, " 我们挂上那幅画吧。is OK.</p>

<p>Now I would like to know what you think and if possible, why  我们挂上去那幅画吧。with 上去 is not acceptable, but, if I leave out the 去， 我们挂上那幅画吧。is acceptable. How are they different?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-05-31T01:17:07.737Z
it sees that difference between 'doing' and 'to do'.
Daniel Yang
<grammar>
How are 我们把那张画儿挂上去吧。and 我们挂上去那幅画吧。 different?
# How are 我们把那张画儿挂上去吧。and 我们挂上去那幅画吧。 different?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2018-05-26)

On the German Chinese web page [here](https://dict.leo.org/forum/viewWrongentry.php?idThread=1373913&lang=de&lp=chde) there is a question about the use of 把
in 我们把那张画儿挂上去吧。So I thought, just rearrange to 我们挂上去那幅画吧。to try to explain.

However, my friend, 晓云, immediately said: 笨蛋的老外，这样不行！

I asked why, she immediately said, "我们把那张画儿挂上去吧。is how we say it."

"But if I don't use 把？" I asked?

She said, " 我们挂上那幅画吧。is OK.

Now I would like to know what you think and if possible, why 我们挂上去那幅画吧。with 上去 is not acceptable, but, if I leave out the 去， 我们挂上那幅画吧。is acceptable. How are they different?

**Tags:** grammar

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: it sees that difference between 'doing' and 'to do'.  

---

## 4 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2018-05-26. Score: 2

> [1. 我们] [2. 挂] [3. 上去] [4. 那幅画] [5. 吧]
>
> [1. subject] [2. verb] [3. directional (verb) complement] [4. object] [5. final particle]

The problem here is, in Chinese grammar, the object should be inserted between the 'verb' and the 'directional complement'

The following is the correct structure:

> [1. 我们] [2. 挂] [3. 那幅画] [4. 上去] [5. 吧]
>
> [1. subject] [2. verb] [3. object] [4. directional (verb) complement] [5. final particle]

~

> *why 我们挂上去那幅画吧。with 上去 is not acceptable, but, if I leave out the 去， 我们挂上那幅画吧。is acceptable. How are they different?*

The reason why "我们挂上去那幅画吧" is not acceptable has been explained above.

* "我们挂上那幅画吧" is not technically incorrect, but the meaning is ambitious. Since the indirect object is omitted, it could mean "我们(在身上)挂上那幅画吧" or "我们(在墙上)挂上那幅画吧"

In summary:

* Both "我们把那张画儿挂上去吧" and "我们挂那幅画上去吧" are clear and correct
* 我们挂上去那幅画吧 is grammatically incorrect
* 我们挂上那幅画吧 is too ambitious, it needs an indirect object
* *我们挂那幅画吧 actually removed the ambiguity, because '挂上' is equally applicable for 'on person' and 'on the wall', while '挂' strongly implied 'to hang (on the wall)'*

Example of [verb]+ [direct object] +[indirect object]

> In " I give you a toy", 'you' is the indirect object, and 'toy' is the direct object
>
> similarly, in "我们(在墙上)挂上那幅画吧", '那幅画' is the direct object, '墙'is the indirect object

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: I am seeing a similarity here between German and Chinese. In German, we have many verbs made of  [directional (verb) complement][verb]. A simple example [hinauf][gehen], hinaufgehen = go up. In a Main Clause the  [directional (verb) complement] is always put at the end of the clause: Ich(I) gehe(go) die Treppe(the stairs) hinauf(up). I go up the stairs.  

---

### Answer by username_3 on 2018-05-26. Score: 1

" 我们挂上那幅画吧"

The point is verb, not 收起, 扔掉 or anything else but 挂上.

我们把那张画儿挂上去.

The point is 那张(not 这张...) or 画(not 照片...).


---

### Answer by username_4 on 2018-05-26. Score: 1

These sentences are correct:

> 我们把那张画儿挂上去吧。
>
> 那张画儿挂在墙上。
>
> 把那张画挂在墙上。

I think the point is the verb 挂. 挂 is usually followed with the location words/phrases, like 在墙上，在xxx, and it's not that natural when it's followed by the direct object, like 画，照片，etc. However, if you want to express you hang something, you might have to use the auxiliary word 把. The structure is 把...挂 (+ location phrases). For example, 把 这张画 挂 在墙上.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: "If a Chinese sentence contains this use of 把，it is always possible to alter the sentence and omit 把, but keep the same meaning." Would you agree or disagree?  
> **username_4**: @username_0 I'd say not *always*. But the most idiomatic expression is with 把，it's unlike in English I think.  

---

### Answer by username_5 on 2018-05-26. Score: 1

I don’t know how to explain it .if you don’t use 把 that sounds weird .But it does not affect the meaning of the sentence.


---

