<blockquote>
<p><strong>把</strong> <a href="http://www.cantonese.sheik.co.uk/dictionary/characters/821/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">http://www.cantonese.sheik.co.uk/dictionary/characters/821/</a></p>
<p><em>[7] [prep] used before a direct object and a verb often carrying the sense of disposal | [粵] 將</em></p>
</blockquote>
<p>把 can be a <strong>disposal marker</strong>. It indicates the object after it, is being acted upon on by the verb or verb phrase that follows.</p>
<p>In &quot;戏剧当成一种时髦&quot;,  &quot;戏剧&quot; is in the usual position of a subject in a sentence. However, we know it is actually the object. To denote this fact, we use a disposal marker &quot;把&quot;.</p>
<ul>
<li><p>他們(subject, omitted)</p>
</li>
<li><p>把/將(disposal marker, indicates the following noun is the object)</p>
</li>
<li><p>戏剧(object)</p>
</li>
<li><p>当成一种时髦(verb phrase act upon the object)</p>
</li>
</ul>
<p>A simpler example:</p>
<p>他殺了</p>
<ul>
<li><p>他(subject)</p>
</li>
<li><p>殺(verb)</p>
</li>
<li><p>了 ([aspect marker] indicating completed action)</p>
</li>
<li><p>object (needed)</p>
</li>
</ul>
<p>把他殺了/將他殺了</p>
<ul>
<li><p>subject (omitted)</p>
</li>
<li><p>把/將 (disposal marker)</p>
</li>
<li><p>他(object)</p>
</li>
<li><p>殺(verb)</p>
</li>
<li><p>了 ([aspect marker] indicating completed action)</p>
</li>
</ul>
<p>Usually, the verb 殺 is placed after the subject,</p>
<p>For example:</p>
<ul>
<li>我殺了他(I killed him)</li>
</ul>
<p>placing aspect marker before the object change the sentence structure to the following:</p>
<ul>
<li>我把他殺了 (he was killed by me) / 我將他殺了 (he was killed by me)</li>
</ul>
<p>The motive of using 把 or 將, is to emphasize the object</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-11-25T04:10:37.293Z
2016-11-25T04:37:09.220Z
2020-06-17T09:50:11.587Z
Tang Ho
<p>it's a simulation of english grammar, after may fourth movement.</p>

<p>就是把戲劇當成一種時髦 is roughly:</p>

<p>that's, (就是) to treat (把) drama (戲劇) as (當成) a (一種) trendy things (時髦)</p>

<p>imo, modern days 白話文 is un-xxxx-able; using western (english?) grammar to write, or analyse written chinese is, well .... i'm not dare to say it openly.</p>

<p>personally, i read &amp; write literary chinese as far as i can.</p>

<p>edited.</p>

<pre><code>那時戲劇界有一種很不好地風氣，就是把戲劇當成一種時髦。
</code></pre>

<p>this sentence in literary chinese, it could be (there're ways to express the idea, here's just one of the attempt) written as:</p>

<h2>時風澆薄﹒以戲為髦</h2>

<p>that, the structure of "把 a 當成 b" is represented as "以ａ為ｂ"; so, the character "把" was seldom used in such situation.</p>

<pre><code>But this use of 把 is not found in old Chinese texts from say 1000 years ago? 
</code></pre>

<p>no, 把 was not used in such situation in the past; based on my experience.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-11-25T02:56:44.787Z
What you are saying is: this syntax is not really Chinese? It was developed to simulate English? Is this form of syntax not found in Old Chinese?
Gangosa
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-11-25T03:22:01.010Z
3 "of course" :( the modern days written vernacular chinese is completely different from literary chinese, there're too much western influences. the internet archive has a copy of "lessons in elementary wenli", which was printed in 1913, with text in written vernacular chinese, literary chinese & english; one might glimpse the infant period of 白話文. https://archive.org/details/lessonsinelement00balliala
水巷孑蠻
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-11-25T03:28:24.300Z
But this use of 把 is not found in old Chinese texts from say 1000 years ago?
Gangosa
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-11-25T03:52:35.993Z
the comment area is hard to use. anyway, i edited the answer, have a look.
水巷孑蠻
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-11-25T04:08:55.010Z
Thanks again! All things, including languages, change. If you read Charles Dickens, whose books are only around 180  years old, the English is very different from today's English. If you go back to the original Shakespeare, not many English people would understand it in its original form and that is only 400 years ago. Chaucer, about 1000 years old,  is completely unintelligible to most English speakers.
Gangosa
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-11-25T04:14:30.803Z
yes, nautical books in late 19th century used different spellings and meanings, and the writing style was, well, not straight and clear :) btw, i prefer jane austen, more :) lastly, i belief "garbage in, garbage out"; don't "waste" too much time on the grammar of modern xxx. once you get the meaning, carry on.
水巷孑蠻
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-11-29T03:25:35.347Z
don't "waste" too much time ==> spend some time? for communication, simple, short sentence with nouns, verbs is adequate. anyway, it's just my opinion.
水巷孑蠻
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-11-30T22:23:10.587Z
@Gangosa: Not that this invalidates your point, but I think that for the ordinary English-speaking high-school student, Dickens is not very different at all from modern English, and Shakespeare is difficult to read but mostly accessible (with some small vocabulary help).  Chaucer is interesting, because at first blush, middle English is hard to read, but knowing just a few rules makes it more or less comprehensible.  Beowulf, on the other hand, is flat out gibberish without special training. :-)
Brian Tung
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-11-25T01:37:54.187Z
2016-11-25T03:51:42.520Z
2016-11-25T03:51:42.520Z
水巷孑蠻
<p>Chinese is a language without case markings on words, but it does make some steps in that direction. It sometimes marks what in some languages would be an accusative or oblique case noun with 把/将 and leaves it in front of the verb. What is the motivation for this? Speech rhythm? Effect? Emphasis? I believed all such sentences could be rewritten without 把, but maybe this one can't?</p>

<p>那时戏剧界有一种很不好地风气，就是把戏剧当成一种时髦。</p>

<p>As far as I know, 当成 means  'regard as, treat as, consider as' if a person is mentioned, or 'regarded as, treated as, considered as' if a person is not mentioned, which implies a third party regarding 1 object as something else, here '戏剧‘ as ‘时髦’</p>

<p>Therefore, '，就是把戏剧当成一种时髦。' is a passive construction, neither '戏剧‘ nor '时髦‘ are regarding anything, a person is doing that.</p>

<p>Theatre was regarded as a vogue.</p>

<p>Why would you say 1.'，就是把戏剧当成一种时髦。' rather than 2.‘，就是戏剧当成一种时髦。‘ We know 'theatre' cannot regard things, people do that.</p>

<p>Is 2. wrong?
 Can I rewrite 3. 你把我当成什么人? as '你当成我（为）什么人？ In 3. we see the 'regarder', 你， whereas in 1. the 'regarder' is not mentioned.</p>

<p>It is said that 把 marks the 'object' of a verb, in which case ，'把戏剧当成一种时髦' has 2 objects and no subject, so to speak, namely '戏剧‘ and '时髦‘。 The person or persons 'regarding' it are not mentioned.</p>

<p>However, even for me as a 老外， ‘就是当成戏剧一种时髦’ sounds terrible.
Maybe '就是人们当成戏剧为一种时髦‘ is acceptable.</p>

<p>Rule: When the regarder is not mentioned, fill the gap before the verb with 把X， where X is the thing regarded. </p>

<p>Does that account for this syntax??</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-11-25T03:23:59.330Z
I missed that: 你就是说这句话可以这样： 就是戏剧界当成戏剧（为？）一种时髦。 下一句话： 但我认为，戏剧有一种独特地精神，它是非常严肃的，不是随随便便什么人都能完儿的。
Gangosa
<grammar>
What is the motivation for the use of 把 or 将？
# What is the motivation for the use of 把 or 将？

(Asked by: username_0 on 2016-11-25)

Chinese is a language without case markings on words, but it does make some steps in that direction. It sometimes marks what in some languages would be an accusative or oblique case noun with 把/将 and leaves it in front of the verb. What is the motivation for this? Speech rhythm? Effect? Emphasis? I believed all such sentences could be rewritten without 把, but maybe this one can't?

那时戏剧界有一种很不好地风气，就是把戏剧当成一种时髦。

As far as I know, 当成 means 'regard as, treat as, consider as' if a person is mentioned, or 'regarded as, treated as, considered as' if a person is not mentioned, which implies a third party regarding 1 object as something else, here '戏剧‘ as ‘时髦’

Therefore, '，就是把戏剧当成一种时髦。' is a passive construction, neither '戏剧‘ nor '时髦‘ are regarding anything, a person is doing that.

Theatre was regarded as a vogue.

Why would you say 1.'，就是把戏剧当成一种时髦。' rather than 2.‘，就是戏剧当成一种时髦。‘ We know 'theatre' cannot regard things, people do that.

Is 2. wrong?
Can I rewrite 3. 你把我当成什么人? as '你当成我（为）什么人？ In 3. we see the 'regarder', 你， whereas in 1. the 'regarder' is not mentioned.

It is said that 把 marks the 'object' of a verb, in which case ，'把戏剧当成一种时髦' has 2 objects and no subject, so to speak, namely '戏剧‘ and '时髦‘。 The person or persons 'regarding' it are not mentioned.

However, even for me as a 老外， ‘就是当成戏剧一种时髦’ sounds terrible.
Maybe '就是人们当成戏剧为一种时髦‘ is acceptable.

Rule: When the regarder is not mentioned, fill the gap before the verb with 把X， where X is the thing regarded.

Does that account for this syntax??

**Tags:** grammar

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: I missed that: 你就是说这句话可以这样： 就是戏剧界当成戏剧（为？）一种时髦。 下一句话： 但我认为，戏剧有一种独特地精神，它是非常严肃的，不是随随便便什么人都能完儿的。  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2016-11-25. Score: 1

> **把** <http://www.cantonese.sheik.co.uk/dictionary/characters/821/>
>
> *[7] [prep] used before a direct object and a verb often carrying the sense of disposal | [粵] 將*

把 can be a **disposal marker**. It indicates the object after it, is being acted upon on by the verb or verb phrase that follows.

In "戏剧当成一种时髦", "戏剧" is in the usual position of a subject in a sentence. However, we know it is actually the object. To denote this fact, we use a disposal marker "把".

* 他們(subject, omitted)
* 把/將(disposal marker, indicates the following noun is the object)
* 戏剧(object)
* 当成一种时髦(verb phrase act upon the object)

A simpler example:

他殺了

* 他(subject)
* 殺(verb)
* 了 ([aspect marker] indicating completed action)
* object (needed)

把他殺了/將他殺了

* subject (omitted)
* 把/將 (disposal marker)
* 他(object)
* 殺(verb)
* 了 ([aspect marker] indicating completed action)

Usually, the verb 殺 is placed after the subject,

For example:

* 我殺了他(I killed him)

placing aspect marker before the object change the sentence structure to the following:

* 我把他殺了 (he was killed by me) / 我將他殺了 (he was killed by me)

The motive of using 把 or 將, is to emphasize the object


---

### Answer by username_2 on 2016-11-25. Score: 1

it's a simulation of english grammar, after may fourth movement.

就是把戲劇當成一種時髦 is roughly:

that's, (就是) to treat (把) drama (戲劇) as (當成) a (一種) trendy things (時髦)

imo, modern days 白話文 is un-xxxx-able; using western (english?) grammar to write, or analyse written chinese is, well .... i'm not dare to say it openly.

personally, i read & write literary chinese as far as i can.

edited.

```
那時戲劇界有一種很不好地風氣，就是把戲劇當成一種時髦。

```

this sentence in literary chinese, it could be (there're ways to express the idea, here's just one of the attempt) written as:

## 時風澆薄﹒以戲為髦

that, the structure of "把 a 當成 b" is represented as "以ａ為ｂ"; so, the character "把" was seldom used in such situation.

```
But this use of 把 is not found in old Chinese texts from say 1000 years ago? 

```

no, 把 was not used in such situation in the past; based on my experience.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: What you are saying is: this syntax is not really Chinese? It was developed to simulate English? Is this form of syntax not found in Old Chinese?  
> **username_2**: 3 "of course" :( the modern days written vernacular chinese is completely different from literary chinese, there're too much western influences. the internet archive has a copy of "lessons in elementary wenli", which was printed in 1913, with text in written vernacular chinese, literary chinese & english; one might glimpse the infant period of 白話文. https://archive.org/details/lessonsinelement00balliala  
> **username_0**: But this use of 把 is not found in old Chinese texts from say 1000 years ago?  
> **username_2**: the comment area is hard to use. anyway, i edited the answer, have a look.  
> **username_0**: Thanks again! All things, including languages, change. If you read Charles Dickens, whose books are only around 180  years old, the English is very different from today's English. If you go back to the original Shakespeare, not many English people would understand it in its original form and that is only 400 years ago. Chaucer, about 1000 years old,  is completely unintelligible to most English speakers.  
> **username_2**: yes, nautical books in late 19th century used different spellings and meanings, and the writing style was, well, not straight and clear :) btw, i prefer jane austen, more :) lastly, i belief "garbage in, garbage out"; don't "waste" too much time on the grammar of modern xxx. once you get the meaning, carry on.  
> **username_2**: don't "waste" too much time ==> spend some time? for communication, simple, short sentence with nouns, verbs is adequate. anyway, it's just my opinion.  
> **username_3**: @username_0: Not that this invalidates your point, but I think that for the ordinary English-speaking high-school student, Dickens is not very different at all from modern English, and Shakespeare is difficult to read but mostly accessible (with some small vocabulary help).  Chaucer is interesting, because at first blush, middle English is hard to read, but knowing just a few rules makes it more or less comprehensible.  Beowulf, on the other hand, is flat out gibberish without special training. :-)  

---

