<p>和/跟 have a few differences in usage:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>和/跟 can both mean the <strong>conjunction</strong> <em>and</em> and the <strong>preposition</strong> <em>with</em>. When meaning <em>and</em>, 和/跟 is used in almost the exact same places as the English &quot;and&quot;. In this meaning, 和/跟 are interchangeable but 跟 is more colloquial and informal than 和. Thus, the usage of 跟 should be a lot less frequent when meaning &quot;and&quot; in writing.</p>
</li>
<li><p>跟 can also mean <em>follow</em>. In this meaning, 跟 is more likely to be used as a <strong>verb</strong> but also possible as a <strong>preposition</strong> (in which case the distinction from 和 is blurred). A verb example:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>紧跟着党.</p>
<p>&quot;tight follow -ing party&quot; or &quot;follow the party closely&quot;.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Some verb/preposition examples:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>跟我来.</p>
<p>Verb: &quot;Follow me come&quot;.</p>
<p>Preposition: &quot;Come with me&quot;.</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>跟我走天下</p>
<p>Verb: (literally) &quot;Follow me walk heaven earth.&quot;</p>
<p>Preposition: (a more proper translation) &quot;Travel the world with me.&quot;</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>我跟他去打猎</p>
<p>Verb: &quot;Following him, we go hunting&quot; (with the possible connotation of he leads, he teaches).</p>
<p>Preposition: &quot;I go hunting with him.&quot;</p>
</blockquote>
</li>
</ul>
<p>When using 跟, there is an <em>ambiguity</em> between the meaning of &quot;follow&quot; or &quot;with&quot;, which is usually resolved with the context. For example in 跟我走天下, depending on the situation we could rewrite 随我走天下 (which gives more emphasis towards &quot;following&quot;) or 和我走天下. Instead, 和 does not induce the same ambiguity. 和 is not considered as an action and does not mean &quot;follow&quot;. Thus to disambiguate on 跟 you can use 和 instead to emphasize &quot;and&quot; and use &quot;conjugate&quot; 跟着 in order to accentuate &quot;follow&quot;.</p>
<hr />
<p>Turning to your example, both</p>
<blockquote>
<p>我喜欢和他聊天儿.</p>
<p>我喜欢跟他聊天儿.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>have no semantic differences. They mean &quot;I like chatting with him&quot;. 和 and 跟 are interchangeable and the alteration from &quot;and&quot; to &quot;with&quot; with &quot;him&quot; placed in a different location is an English artifact. However, you can consider 和/跟 both as a <strong>conjunction</strong> or <strong>preposition</strong>. Two possibilities:</p>
<ol>
<li>和他/跟他 can be categorized as a <strong>preposition phrase</strong> (PP) formed out of the <strong>preposition</strong> 和/跟 and the <strong>noun phrase</strong> (NP) formed of a single noun 他. In this case, 喜欢和/跟他聊天儿 is a <strong>verb phrase</strong> (VP) consisting of verb + PP + NP. 喜欢 is the verb. 聊天儿 is a noun phrase of a single noun. More broadly, there may be multiple PP in that same place. So verb + PP (optional; repeatable) + NP is <em>one</em> way to define verb phrases. The final sentence is NP + VP with the NP formed out of a single noun 我. NP + VP is the way we typically categorize English sentences. You can see a clear SVO ordering out of categorization in such style. Visually, the breakdown looks like 我[喜欢|和他|聊天儿].</li>
</ol>
<blockquote>
<p>聊天儿 is ordinarily an action but categorized as a noun in this case. It is plausible because, in Chinese, there would not be morphological changes from verb to noun the way English conjugates words by for example adding -ing. (This also mean that even if a verb is rarely used as a noun, it will not appear strange if you start doing so because it is so frequently done elsewhere. To be sure, 聊天儿 as a noun in the same vein chat<em>ting</em> as a noun is not strange in Chinese.)</p>
</blockquote>
<ol start="2">
<li>和/跟 may also be <strong>conjunctions</strong>. 和/跟他 may be a short-hand of 我和/跟他 with 我 omitted. This categorization is not as contrived as it first meets eyes when you consider 1st/2nd person pronouns are often omitted in Chinese and especially so when the pronoun is the subject of the sentence or is already mentioned. With that, 我和他/我跟他 is a noun phrase formed out of noun (omitted) + conjunction + noun; 聊天儿 is a verb phrase of a single verb; and 我和/跟他聊天儿 is a dependent clause which by itself would be a sentence formed out of NP + VP.  So the verb phrase 喜欢和/跟他聊天儿 is the short-hand of 喜欢我和/跟他聊天儿. The verb phrase consists of verb + NP with NP being a noun clause. The final sentence is still NP + VP with the NP consisting of a single noun 我. Visually, the breakdown looks like 我[喜欢{(我)和他|聊天儿}].</li>
</ol>
<blockquote>
<p>Note that unlike in English, Chinese clauses have no morphological changes from their sentential equivalents. ie. English may use that/when/while/which, may change tense, may change from inquisitive to declarative in ordering, Chinese do not do those.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Now you may be confused as to why I keep enforcing verb phrase of a single verb or noun phrase of a single noun. That is for consistency when we expend the system to a greater set of examples (ie. not in this question). The noun phrase 我和他 gives a clue. It is definitely not a single noun. But its position in sentences is similar to a single noun. In actuality, it is more consistent to see it the other around. Single nouns can form a noun phrase by themselves or can have adjective, and/or noun + conjunction in front of or after; on top of that, these decorations/modifications are repeatable.</p>
<hr />
<p>I am not one of those who posit that grammatical categories are unique and stable. I think the guideline is which system can explain/predict Chinese sentences in the most complete and simple way. But in limited examples, we cannot conclude one way or the other.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-19T08:47:37.760Z
Well, for me *I like chatting with him* and *I like that you and me chat* have the same meaning, just only different grammatical structures. So in the example, I understand you say both 跟他 / 和他 are grammatically complements of the verb 聊天儿 right?
Puco4
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-19T13:36:54.457Z
For me "I like chatting with him" and "I like that you and me chat" have the same meaning too. No subtle differences. Just the same. That's the same between 跟他 / 和他. For analyzing the grammatical components, I see 2 ways to consider the example actually. One is to consider 和他聊天儿 a single noun phrase, formed out of a preposition phrase + noun phrase. The preposition phrase consists of a preposition (ie. considering 和 as preposition) and a noun 他. The noun phrase in English would be a verb conjugate made into a noun; in Chinese, so many verbs are commonly used as noun, it won't feel
Argyll
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-19T13:40:17.693Z
(cont) off if you use a verb that is usually not noun as a noun for the first time. So basically it's safe to consider Chinese verbs are their own conjugates almost all the time. And so 我喜欢和他聊天儿 is split into verb phrase 我喜欢 and noun phrase 和他聊天儿. Here you see the typical SOV structure. This is rather an English way of seeing things. I don't know if it is as productive in Chinese as it is in English.
Argyll
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-19T13:43:30.317Z
(cont) the other way is that you can probably say 和他聊天儿 is a short hand for 我和他聊天儿. It's not as contrived as first meets the eyes when you consider that Chinese sentences typically omit first person subject. And so 我和他 is a noun phrase. 我和他聊天儿 would be a clause in English; but in Chinese, perhaps you can say any sentence can automatically be a clause without further modification. Otherwise, we still get the same sentence structure. The difference is whether 和 is being a conjunction or preposition. @Puco4 Not sure what grammatical complement means. If you mean preposition phrase, it could work
Argyll
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-19T14:10:31.907Z
I think (我)和他聊天儿 could be considered a separate sentence (Subj + Prep + Verb) rather than a noun phrase, and then the full sentence 我+喜欢+和他聊天儿 can be considered as Subj + Verb + Dependent Clause. This grammatical discussion was precisely the main point of my question. I'd appreciate if you could include it in your answer (conciseness and clarity are always wellcome), so I can accept it if there are no contrary opinions.
Puco4
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-19T14:19:07.510Z
@Puco4: I'll probably need to rearrange things a bit to incorporate that. Give me some time. Cheers
Argyll
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-19T14:35:32.370Z
No problem, take your time! Also, I find a bit strange that the same structure can have more than one grammatical interpretation. You say that 和 in the example might work either as (1) a *conjunction* that creates the noun sentence (我)和他 that is the subject of the dependent clause 和他聊天儿 and (2) a *preposition* that creates the prepositional phrase 和他 that complements the verb 聊天儿. How is it possible its grammatical function is ambiguous? I can't think of any example that this happens in English.
Puco4
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-19T15:14:18.130Z
@Puco4: Done! Grammatical characterization is almost always ambiguous! In order to encompass all typical usages of English sentences, you have to have recursive definitions that end up allowing preposition phrase following a noun to be in the same place as adjective ahead of a(nother) noun. Things like that induce ambiguity in the categorization. Yet more prevalent in our examples is that there may not be a convincing consensus of Chinese grammatical structure. One aspect is due to lack of popularity with these sorts of things. Another is just perhaps academically it hasn't been done.
Argyll
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-19T15:14:26.717Z
@Puco4: So perhaps some more discoveries await to be found.
Argyll
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-20T09:16:56.597Z
I suggested an edit synthesizing a bit your ideas. I don't know if you will like it, so feel free to change it as you like or just retrieve your old text.
Puco4
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-20T18:56:53.603Z
@Puco4: Thanks for the edit. It is a markable improvement. I do need to make just a few changes but it's just a few.
Argyll
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-20T19:11:19.563Z
@Puco4: Also I browsed through some literature. The custom is to group the verb into verb phrase (the "predicate" part; the 2nd part of the sentence) as much as possible. That makes sense. That accommodates linking verb + adjective type of structure better. So I made the change there too. Hope I didn't confuse you. And I don't want you to keep remembering the wrong idea because of me.
Argyll
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-18T21:18:48.217Z
2020-08-20T19:40:59.083Z
2020-08-20T19:40:59.083Z
Argyll
<p><a href="https://www.zdic.net/hans/%E5%92%8C" rel="nofollow noreferrer">和</a> and <a href="https://www.zdic.net/hans/%E8%B7%9F" rel="nofollow noreferrer">跟</a> <em>may</em> have the same grammatical function, when they introduce a verbal company complement, occurring before the verb. Then both are <strong>prepositions</strong>. Even more so, in the linked Zdic entries, both of them are respectively used to define the other:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>【和】：</strong> 连词，<strong>跟</strong>，同：我～老师打球。</p>
<p><strong>【跟】：</strong> <strong>和</strong>，同：我～他在一起工作。</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In that case, they both describe together with whom the action occurs and can be used interchangeably:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>我喜欢<strong>和</strong>他聊天 and 我喜欢<strong>跟</strong>他聊天</p>
<p>我<strong>和</strong>你说一下 and 我<strong>跟</strong>你说一下</p>
<p>我想<strong>和</strong>我父母去度假 and 我想<strong>跟</strong>我父母去度假</p>
</blockquote>
<p>As you can see, they are used when the noun refers to a human.</p>
<hr>
<p>That aside, 和 also works as a <strong>conjunction</strong>, as Zdic notes (连词), more specifically to coordinate nouns<sup>1</sup>. In that case, it can't be grammatically replaced with 跟：</p>
<blockquote>
<p>西班牙<strong>和</strong>葡萄牙，我都去过</p>
<p>登机前请您准备好护照<strong>和</strong>登机牌</p>
</blockquote>
<hr>
<p><strong>Additional Notes</strong></p>
<p>The linked Zdic entries may appear confusing with respect to a point: I say that 跟 is interchangeable with 和 when they both are prepositions, but Zdic uses 跟 to define 和 when it's a conjunction! From the 和 entry:</p>
<blockquote>
<ol start="6">
<li><p>连词，跟，同：我～老师打球。</p>
</li>
<li><p>介词，向，对：我～老师请教。</p>
</li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
<p>The examples provided there also don't do a good job at disambiguating, as the position of the word in both 我～老师打球 and 我～老师请教 is exactly the same.</p>
<p>I think that's a mistake of the dictionary, because 跟 is grammatically equivalent to 和 only when used as a preposition (介词) — in that case, Zdic is more accurate, as 跟 is defined in terms of 向 and 对 just as 和 is.</p>
<p>My examples above show the role of 和/跟 as prepositions by placing the prepositional phrase as <em>not contiguous</em> to the subject of the main sentence.</p>
<hr>
<p><sup>1: you can't use 和 to coordinate verbs, or entire sentences</sup></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-18T20:56:37.940Z
re your footnote 1:  yes you can. 我想去西班牙踢球和冲浪。 我想去西班牙度假和葡萄牙买酒. 和 is one of the most universal conjunctions (and prepositions?) with no syntactical restrictions -- much like the English "and". As for the characterization of 和 as preposition, I don't see it. That may be juxtaposing English linguistic structure onto Chinese?
Argyll
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-19T15:29:39.730Z
@Argyll 和 can't be used to link verbs. The fact that it can be easily understood doesn't mean it's correct. As a conjunction it's typically a noun conjunction. An easy counter-example, taken from the internet: 你要按照我说的做并且要做好 in here 和 clearly doesn't work. Verb or clause juxtaposition is rendered with 并、且、以及、及 etc. As for the "together with", I removed the quotes. I'm not suggesting the translation is always "together with".
blackgreen
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-19T15:34:11.073Z
An alternative way of seeing why 和 does not replace 并且 in 你要按照我说的做并且要做好 is that 并且 is a preposition that link sentences in the same class as "as well + comma", "in addition + comma" while 和 is not. Rather, whether two actions are involved, 和 never replaces 并且.
Argyll
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-19T15:47:14.803Z
@Argyll English "every day I go to class by bike *and* do my homework at home" (clause juxtaposition) -> in Chinese "我每天骑自行车去上课*并*在家里做作业"。"and" is perfectly fine in English, just as 并 in Chinese, whereas 和 would not be correct
blackgreen
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-19T15:51:58.530Z
Clause juxtaposition is different from connecting verbs. Connecting verbs can be coincidental due to connecting phrases. The point is indeed 并且 is used for clause juxtaposition -- though it may be less productive to consider English style clauses in Chinese. That's why you see a distinction between 并且 and 和. There is a distinction. At the same time, 和 is seen connecting verbs because it is used to connect phrases.
Argyll
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-19T15:54:11.573Z
btw, in both 西班牙和葡萄牙，我都去过 and 登机前请您准备好护照和登机牌, 跟 can be used.  跟老师请教问题 is probably more common than 和老师请教问题. They are said often, though both make no sense.
Argyll
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-19T16:12:01.660Z
@Argyll 我【和/跟 】老师请教 is an example from Zdic, it means "I consult with the teacher". Not sure why it seems strange to you... I agree that 和 can be used to coordinate a list of *verbal phrases* as in your example above 踢球和冲浪, that's not the same as claiming that it connect verbs.
blackgreen
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-19T16:15:03.080Z
It's strange because in actuality, there is directionality required in the semantic. 我向老师请教问题 would correctly contain that meaning, except 向 would not be colloquial. If this is the only example where 跟 is used, it doesn't really make 和/跟 contain directionality. It just makes the usage unique and colloquial. (Though 跟 due to meaning "follow" contains direction. "follow" and "towards" are probably different.)
Argyll
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-19T16:26:33.963Z
Independent from connecting phrases, 和 does also connect verbs. Earlier I put emphasis on coincidence only because for a moment I hesitated if one can legitimately consider verbs as never repeated in a single verb phrase. And that's ofc not the case. Please Google, for example, "行军和歌唱" (with ""). Repeated verbs in a single sentence (without clause/verb conjugate into noun) is rare in Chinese. Doesn't mean 和 is not used in those rare instances.
Argyll
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-19T16:28:39.857Z
@Argyll I know that it's possible to find examples that support your theory. We would need to go deep in linguistics to show why 和 can be used in those cases without contradicting my claim. However for the purposes of this discussion, I simply wanted to challenge this remark of yours "*和 is one of the most universal conjunctions (and prepositions?) with no syntactical restrictions*", which is of course not true.
blackgreen
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-19T16:30:20.380Z
I welcome the challenge. It is however as universal as conjunctions get. You specifically proposed that 和 cannot connect verbs. That is not true. You are only observing that because connected verbs themselves are rare in Chinese.
Argyll
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-19T16:38:43.750Z
Let us [continue this discussion in chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/111977/discussion-between-blackgreen-and-argyll).
blackgreen
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-20T08:02:23.960Z
@blackgreen when you say *My examples above show the role of 和/跟 as prepositions by placing the prepositional phrase as not contiguous to the subject of the main sentence.* Which examples do you mean? If you refer to 我想和我父母去度假 (and the other two), I think you could still have an omitted 我 in 我想(我)和我父母去度假, so I don't see from these how we could draw the conclusion that 和/跟 *must* introduce prepositional phrases.
Puco4
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-18T13:19:45.657Z
2020-08-19T15:19:16.613Z
2020-08-19T15:19:16.613Z
blackgreen
<p>Thinking about the <a href="https://chinese.stackexchange.com/q/2032/25265">Difference between 与，和 and 跟?</a>, I was wondering if it can be argued that 和 (hé) and 跟 (gēn) have different grammatical functions. I understand 和 corresponds in English to the conjunction <em>and</em> and 跟 to the preposition <em>with</em>. Then, if we consider the example:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>我喜欢<strong>和他</strong>聊天儿。</p>
<p>Wǒ xǐhuān <strong>hé tā</strong> liáotiānr.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Literally means: <em>I like (that) (me) <strong>and him</strong> chat.</em> Here, (我)和他 <em>(me) and him</em> is the <strong>subject of the subordinate clause</strong> (我)和他聊天儿 <em>(me) and him chat</em>.</p>
<p>While:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>我喜欢<strong>跟他</strong>聊天儿。</p>
<p>Wǒ xǐhuān <strong>gēn tā</strong> liáotiānr.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Literally means: <em>I like to chat <strong>with him</strong>.</em> Here 跟他 <em>with him</em> is a <strong>verbal complement</strong> of the verb 聊天儿 <em>to chat</em>.</p>
<p><strong>Question:</strong> Is it correct to say that 和 and 跟 have the <em>same semantic meaning</em>, but a <em>different grammatical function</em>?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-14T11:11:30.193Z
No, in 我喜欢和他聊天儿, 和 just means 跟.
dan
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-14T11:14:49.603Z
@dan so both work as verbal complements meaning *with*?
Puco4
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-14T11:16:57.857Z
Yes, both mean I like to chat with him.
dan
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-14T11:23:37.100Z
Maybe then 和 would only mean *and* if we had 我喜欢我和他聊天儿。*I like (that) me and him chat.*?
Puco4
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-14T11:32:19.037Z
It means 'and' in 我有一个姐姐和一个弟弟.
dan
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-14T11:35:47.800Z
But we also have Noun + 和 + Noun in 我和他 right? Maybe if we had 都 it would be possible 我喜欢我和他都聊天儿。means *I like (that) me and him both chat.* ？
Puco4
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-14T11:45:18.157Z
我喜欢我和他聊天 is strange.  We expect 我喜欢和他聊天 instead.  和他: with him.
dan
<grammar><sentence-structure><phrase><syntax>
Do 和 and 跟 have different grammatical functions？
# Do 和 and 跟 have different grammatical functions？

(Asked by: username_0 on 2020-08-14)

Thinking about the [Difference between 与，和 and 跟?](https://chinese.stackexchange.com/q/2032/25265), I was wondering if it can be argued that 和 (hé) and 跟 (gēn) have different grammatical functions. I understand 和 corresponds in English to the conjunction *and* and 跟 to the preposition *with*. Then, if we consider the example:

> 我喜欢**和他**聊天儿。
>
> Wǒ xǐhuān **hé tā** liáotiānr.

Literally means: *I like (that) (me) **and him** chat.* Here, (我)和他 *(me) and him* is the **subject of the subordinate clause** (我)和他聊天儿 *(me) and him chat*.

While:

> 我喜欢**跟他**聊天儿。
>
> Wǒ xǐhuān **gēn tā** liáotiānr.

Literally means: *I like to chat **with him**.* Here 跟他 *with him* is a **verbal complement** of the verb 聊天儿 *to chat*.

**Question:** Is it correct to say that 和 and 跟 have the *same semantic meaning*, but a *different grammatical function*?

**Tags:** grammar, sentence-structure, phrase, syntax

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: No, in 我喜欢和他聊天儿, 和 just means 跟.  
> **username_0**: @username_1 so both work as verbal complements meaning *with*?  
> **username_1**: Yes, both mean I like to chat with him.  
> **username_0**: Maybe then 和 would only mean *and* if we had 我喜欢我和他聊天儿。*I like (that) me and him chat.*?  
> **username_1**: It means 'and' in 我有一个姐姐和一个弟弟.  
> **username_0**: But we also have Noun + 和 + Noun in 我和他 right? Maybe if we had 都 it would be possible 我喜欢我和他都聊天儿。means *I like (that) me and him both chat.* ？  
> **username_1**: 我喜欢我和他聊天 is strange.  We expect 我喜欢和他聊天 instead.  和他: with him.  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2020-08-18. Score: 1 | Accepted answer

和/跟 have a few differences in usage:

* 和/跟 can both mean the **conjunction** *and* and the **preposition** *with*. When meaning *and*, 和/跟 is used in almost the exact same places as the English "and". In this meaning, 和/跟 are interchangeable but 跟 is more colloquial and informal than 和. Thus, the usage of 跟 should be a lot less frequent when meaning "and" in writing.
* 跟 can also mean *follow*. In this meaning, 跟 is more likely to be used as a **verb** but also possible as a **preposition** (in which case the distinction from 和 is blurred). A verb example:

  > 紧跟着党.
  >
  > "tight follow -ing party" or "follow the party closely".

  Some verb/preposition examples:

  > 跟我来.
  >
  > Verb: "Follow me come".
  >
  > Preposition: "Come with me".

  > 跟我走天下
  >
  > Verb: (literally) "Follow me walk heaven earth."
  >
  > Preposition: (a more proper translation) "Travel the world with me."

  > 我跟他去打猎
  >
  > Verb: "Following him, we go hunting" (with the possible connotation of he leads, he teaches).
  >
  > Preposition: "I go hunting with him."

When using 跟, there is an *ambiguity* between the meaning of "follow" or "with", which is usually resolved with the context. For example in 跟我走天下, depending on the situation we could rewrite 随我走天下 (which gives more emphasis towards "following") or 和我走天下. Instead, 和 does not induce the same ambiguity. 和 is not considered as an action and does not mean "follow". Thus to disambiguate on 跟 you can use 和 instead to emphasize "and" and use "conjugate" 跟着 in order to accentuate "follow".

---

Turning to your example, both

> 我喜欢和他聊天儿.
>
> 我喜欢跟他聊天儿.

have no semantic differences. They mean "I like chatting with him". 和 and 跟 are interchangeable and the alteration from "and" to "with" with "him" placed in a different location is an English artifact. However, you can consider 和/跟 both as a **conjunction** or **preposition**. Two possibilities:

1. 和他/跟他 can be categorized as a **preposition phrase** (PP) formed out of the **preposition** 和/跟 and the **noun phrase** (NP) formed of a single noun 他. In this case, 喜欢和/跟他聊天儿 is a **verb phrase** (VP) consisting of verb + PP + NP. 喜欢 is the verb. 聊天儿 is a noun phrase of a single noun. More broadly, there may be multiple PP in that same place. So verb + PP (optional; repeatable) + NP is *one* way to define verb phrases. The final sentence is NP + VP with the NP formed out of a single noun 我. NP + VP is the way we typically categorize English sentences. You can see a clear SVO ordering out of categorization in such style. Visually, the breakdown looks like 我[喜欢|和他|聊天儿].

> 聊天儿 is ordinarily an action but categorized as a noun in this case. It is plausible because, in Chinese, there would not be morphological changes from verb to noun the way English conjugates words by for example adding -ing. (This also mean that even if a verb is rarely used as a noun, it will not appear strange if you start doing so because it is so frequently done elsewhere. To be sure, 聊天儿 as a noun in the same vein chat*ting* as a noun is not strange in Chinese.)

2. 和/跟 may also be **conjunctions**. 和/跟他 may be a short-hand of 我和/跟他 with 我 omitted. This categorization is not as contrived as it first meets eyes when you consider 1st/2nd person pronouns are often omitted in Chinese and especially so when the pronoun is the subject of the sentence or is already mentioned. With that, 我和他/我跟他 is a noun phrase formed out of noun (omitted) + conjunction + noun; 聊天儿 is a verb phrase of a single verb; and 我和/跟他聊天儿 is a dependent clause which by itself would be a sentence formed out of NP + VP. So the verb phrase 喜欢和/跟他聊天儿 is the short-hand of 喜欢我和/跟他聊天儿. The verb phrase consists of verb + NP with NP being a noun clause. The final sentence is still NP + VP with the NP consisting of a single noun 我. Visually, the breakdown looks like 我[喜欢{(我)和他|聊天儿}].

> Note that unlike in English, Chinese clauses have no morphological changes from their sentential equivalents. ie. English may use that/when/while/which, may change tense, may change from inquisitive to declarative in ordering, Chinese do not do those.

Now you may be confused as to why I keep enforcing verb phrase of a single verb or noun phrase of a single noun. That is for consistency when we expend the system to a greater set of examples (ie. not in this question). The noun phrase 我和他 gives a clue. It is definitely not a single noun. But its position in sentences is similar to a single noun. In actuality, it is more consistent to see it the other around. Single nouns can form a noun phrase by themselves or can have adjective, and/or noun + conjunction in front of or after; on top of that, these decorations/modifications are repeatable.

---

I am not one of those who posit that grammatical categories are unique and stable. I think the guideline is which system can explain/predict Chinese sentences in the most complete and simple way. But in limited examples, we cannot conclude one way or the other.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Well, for me *I like chatting with him* and *I like that you and me chat* have the same meaning, just only different grammatical structures. So in the example, I understand you say both 跟他 / 和他 are grammatically complements of the verb 聊天儿 right?  
> **username_2**: For me "I like chatting with him" and "I like that you and me chat" have the same meaning too. No subtle differences. Just the same. That's the same between 跟他 / 和他. For analyzing the grammatical components, I see 2 ways to consider the example actually. One is to consider 和他聊天儿 a single noun phrase, formed out of a preposition phrase + noun phrase. The preposition phrase consists of a preposition (ie. considering 和 as preposition) and a noun 他. The noun phrase in English would be a verb conjugate made into a noun; in Chinese, so many verbs are commonly used as noun, it won't feel  
> **username_2**: (cont) off if you use a verb that is usually not noun as a noun for the first time. So basically it's safe to consider Chinese verbs are their own conjugates almost all the time. And so 我喜欢和他聊天儿 is split into verb phrase 我喜欢 and noun phrase 和他聊天儿. Here you see the typical SOV structure. This is rather an English way of seeing things. I don't know if it is as productive in Chinese as it is in English.  
> **username_2**: (cont) the other way is that you can probably say 和他聊天儿 is a short hand for 我和他聊天儿. It's not as contrived as first meets the eyes when you consider that Chinese sentences typically omit first person subject. And so 我和他 is a noun phrase. 我和他聊天儿 would be a clause in English; but in Chinese, perhaps you can say any sentence can automatically be a clause without further modification. Otherwise, we still get the same sentence structure. The difference is whether 和 is being a conjunction or preposition. @username_0 Not sure what grammatical complement means. If you mean preposition phrase, it could work  
> **username_0**: I think (我)和他聊天儿 could be considered a separate sentence (Subj + Prep + Verb) rather than a noun phrase, and then the full sentence 我+喜欢+和他聊天儿 can be considered as Subj + Verb + Dependent Clause. This grammatical discussion was precisely the main point of my question. I'd appreciate if you could include it in your answer (conciseness and clarity are always wellcome), so I can accept it if there are no contrary opinions.  
> **username_2**: @username_0: I'll probably need to rearrange things a bit to incorporate that. Give me some time. Cheers  
> **username_0**: No problem, take your time! Also, I find a bit strange that the same structure can have more than one grammatical interpretation. You say that 和 in the example might work either as (1) a *conjunction* that creates the noun sentence (我)和他 that is the subject of the dependent clause 和他聊天儿 and (2) a *preposition* that creates the prepositional phrase 和他 that complements the verb 聊天儿. How is it possible its grammatical function is ambiguous? I can't think of any example that this happens in English.  
> **username_2**: @username_0: Done! Grammatical characterization is almost always ambiguous! In order to encompass all typical usages of English sentences, you have to have recursive definitions that end up allowing preposition phrase following a noun to be in the same place as adjective ahead of a(nother) noun. Things like that induce ambiguity in the categorization. Yet more prevalent in our examples is that there may not be a convincing consensus of Chinese grammatical structure. One aspect is due to lack of popularity with these sorts of things. Another is just perhaps academically it hasn't been done.  
> **username_2**: @username_0: So perhaps some more discoveries await to be found.  
> **username_0**: I suggested an edit synthesizing a bit your ideas. I don't know if you will like it, so feel free to change it as you like or just retrieve your old text.  
> **username_2**: @username_0: Thanks for the edit. It is a markable improvement. I do need to make just a few changes but it's just a few.  
> **username_2**: @username_0: Also I browsed through some literature. The custom is to group the verb into verb phrase (the "predicate" part; the 2nd part of the sentence) as much as possible. That makes sense. That accommodates linking verb + adjective type of structure better. So I made the change there too. Hope I didn't confuse you. And I don't want you to keep remembering the wrong idea because of me.  

---

### Answer by username_3 on 2020-08-18. Score: 1

[和](https://www.zdic.net/hans/%E5%92%8C) and [跟](https://www.zdic.net/hans/%E8%B7%9F) *may* have the same grammatical function, when they introduce a verbal company complement, occurring before the verb. Then both are **prepositions**. Even more so, in the linked Zdic entries, both of them are respectively used to define the other:

> **【和】：** 连词，**跟**，同：我～老师打球。
>
> **【跟】：** **和**，同：我～他在一起工作。

In that case, they both describe together with whom the action occurs and can be used interchangeably:

> 我喜欢**和**他聊天 and 我喜欢**跟**他聊天
>
> 我**和**你说一下 and 我**跟**你说一下
>
> 我想**和**我父母去度假 and 我想**跟**我父母去度假

As you can see, they are used when the noun refers to a human.

---

That aside, 和 also works as a **conjunction**, as Zdic notes (连词), more specifically to coordinate nouns1. In that case, it can't be grammatically replaced with 跟：

> 西班牙**和**葡萄牙，我都去过
>
> 登机前请您准备好护照**和**登机牌

---

**Additional Notes**

The linked Zdic entries may appear confusing with respect to a point: I say that 跟 is interchangeable with 和 when they both are prepositions, but Zdic uses 跟 to define 和 when it's a conjunction! From the 和 entry:

> 6. 连词，跟，同：我～老师打球。
> 7. 介词，向，对：我～老师请教。

The examples provided there also don't do a good job at disambiguating, as the position of the word in both 我～老师打球 and 我～老师请教 is exactly the same.

I think that's a mistake of the dictionary, because 跟 is grammatically equivalent to 和 only when used as a preposition (介词) — in that case, Zdic is more accurate, as 跟 is defined in terms of 向 and 对 just as 和 is.

My examples above show the role of 和/跟 as prepositions by placing the prepositional phrase as *not contiguous* to the subject of the main sentence.

---

1: you can't use 和 to coordinate verbs, or entire sentences

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: re your footnote 1:  yes you can. 我想去西班牙踢球和冲浪。 我想去西班牙度假和葡萄牙买酒. 和 is one of the most universal conjunctions (and prepositions?) with no syntactical restrictions -- much like the English "and". As for the characterization of 和 as preposition, I don't see it. That may be juxtaposing English linguistic structure onto Chinese?  
> **username_3**: @username_2 和 can't be used to link verbs. The fact that it can be easily understood doesn't mean it's correct. As a conjunction it's typically a noun conjunction. An easy counter-example, taken from the internet: 你要按照我说的做并且要做好 in here 和 clearly doesn't work. Verb or clause juxtaposition is rendered with 并、且、以及、及 etc. As for the "together with", I removed the quotes. I'm not suggesting the translation is always "together with".  
> **username_2**: An alternative way of seeing why 和 does not replace 并且 in 你要按照我说的做并且要做好 is that 并且 is a preposition that link sentences in the same class as "as well + comma", "in addition + comma" while 和 is not. Rather, whether two actions are involved, 和 never replaces 并且.  
> **username_3**: @username_2 English "every day I go to class by bike *and* do my homework at home" (clause juxtaposition) -> in Chinese "我每天骑自行车去上课*并*在家里做作业"。"and" is perfectly fine in English, just as 并 in Chinese, whereas 和 would not be correct  
> **username_2**: Clause juxtaposition is different from connecting verbs. Connecting verbs can be coincidental due to connecting phrases. The point is indeed 并且 is used for clause juxtaposition -- though it may be less productive to consider English style clauses in Chinese. That's why you see a distinction between 并且 and 和. There is a distinction. At the same time, 和 is seen connecting verbs because it is used to connect phrases.  
> **username_2**: btw, in both 西班牙和葡萄牙，我都去过 and 登机前请您准备好护照和登机牌, 跟 can be used.  跟老师请教问题 is probably more common than 和老师请教问题. They are said often, though both make no sense.  
> **username_3**: @username_2 我【和/跟 】老师请教 is an example from Zdic, it means "I consult with the teacher". Not sure why it seems strange to you... I agree that 和 can be used to coordinate a list of *verbal phrases* as in your example above 踢球和冲浪, that's not the same as claiming that it connect verbs.  
> **username_2**: It's strange because in actuality, there is directionality required in the semantic. 我向老师请教问题 would correctly contain that meaning, except 向 would not be colloquial. If this is the only example where 跟 is used, it doesn't really make 和/跟 contain directionality. It just makes the usage unique and colloquial. (Though 跟 due to meaning "follow" contains direction. "follow" and "towards" are probably different.)  
> **username_2**: Independent from connecting phrases, 和 does also connect verbs. Earlier I put emphasis on coincidence only because for a moment I hesitated if one can legitimately consider verbs as never repeated in a single verb phrase. And that's ofc not the case. Please Google, for example, "行军和歌唱" (with ""). Repeated verbs in a single sentence (without clause/verb conjugate into noun) is rare in Chinese. Doesn't mean 和 is not used in those rare instances.  
> **username_3**: @username_2 I know that it's possible to find examples that support your theory. We would need to go deep in linguistics to show why 和 can be used in those cases without contradicting my claim. However for the purposes of this discussion, I simply wanted to challenge this remark of yours "*和 is one of the most universal conjunctions (and prepositions?) with no syntactical restrictions*", which is of course not true.  
> **username_2**: I welcome the challenge. It is however as universal as conjunctions get. You specifically proposed that 和 cannot connect verbs. That is not true. You are only observing that because connected verbs themselves are rare in Chinese.  
> **username_3**: Let us [continue this discussion in chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/111977/discussion-between-username_3-and-username_2).  
> **username_0**: @username_3 when you say *My examples above show the role of 和/跟 as prepositions by placing the prepositional phrase as not contiguous to the subject of the main sentence.* Which examples do you mean? If you refer to 我想和我父母去度假 (and the other two), I think you could still have an omitted 我 in 我想(我)和我父母去度假, so I don't see from these how we could draw the conclusion that 和/跟 *must* introduce prepositional phrases.  

---

