<p>You cannot apply 把 to a verb phrase with potential particle because 把 is a dispositive marker. A dispositive marker marks an object to be disposited of by a verb. For example: in (把)他趕走. the object(他) is being disposited of by the verb 趕走 (chase away). </p>

<p>When a potential particles (得 or 不) is inserted between a verb and its resultive/ directional particle, that verb becomes a potential verb. For example:  趕走= chase away;  趕得走 = able to chase away.  It can no longer be applied to [dispositive marker + object] structure which requires an active verb at the end.</p>

<p>Example: in 我(趕走)他 , (趕走) is an action verb; in 我(趕得走)他, (趕得走)is a potential verb- <em>You can, but you are not actively preforming the verb</em>)</p>

<p>For the same reason, 我把他的名字(想起來- <em>active verb</em>) is correct, but  我把他的名字(想不/得起來- <em>potential verb</em>) is incorrect</p>

<p>To make '我把他的名字想起來' negative , you have to modify 把 with a negative marker like 沒 or 未 , for example: "我(沒)把他的名字想起來"</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>When I have 想不起來 on its own without 把，can I even unambiguously say, whether it is the negative of 可能補語 or 趨向補語？</em></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Without 把, there's no object to be disposited of,  '想起來' (active verb) or '想不起來/'想得起來 (potential verb) can be applied.</p>

<p>The sentence can be "我(想起)他的名字來" or, "我(想得起)他的名字來,  "我(想不起)他的名字來"- (<em>you are not actively preforming the verb</em>)</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-06-26T16:29:13.343Z
2018-06-26T16:29:13.343Z
Tang Ho
<p>I was under the impression that you cannot say:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>*我把他的名字想不起來。</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Because our book says you cannot apply 把 to 可能補語。
But now my fellow students pointed out that 想不起來 is no 可能補語, but rather 趨向補語的引申用法。
<a href="https://i.sstatic.net/RGsJx.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/RGsJx.jpg" alt="enter image description here"></a>
Does the same rule apply, or is the sentence correct? My grammar book says that 趨向補語 frequently acts as 可能補語 (for example: 自行車壞了，我騎不回去了！). It seems only natural, that the same restrictions should apply.</p>

<p>When I have 想不起來 on its own without 把，can I even unambiguously say, whether it is the negative of 可能補語 or 趨向補語？</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-06-26T10:18:38.207Z
把... structure can not be used negatively. You can say *把他的名字想起來*, but can't say *把他的名字想不起來*. Sometimes, 别把....denotes negative, but meaning will be slightly changed.
dan
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-06-26T11:55:29.017Z
趋向补语 and 结果补语 （overlapping anyhow) suitably transformed (with 不 or 得）become 可能补语，想不起來 would seem to be such a transformed 趋向补语
user6065
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-06-26T12:31:17.813Z
把他的名字想起來 is imperative, not declarative. You can make this negative, but it would become 不要把他的名字想起來
fefe
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-06-26T12:32:28.417Z
@fefe the question is if and why the starred sentence is wrong.
Ludi
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-06-26T12:34:25.433Z
@Ludi yes, so this is only a comment. And it is in response to dan's comment ...
fefe
<direction-complement>
Extended use of the Complement of direction and 把。
# Extended use of the Complement of direction and 把。

(Asked by: username_0 on 2018-06-26)

I was under the impression that you cannot say:

> \*我把他的名字想不起來。

Because our book says you cannot apply 把 to 可能補語。
But now my fellow students pointed out that 想不起來 is no 可能補語, but rather 趨向補語的引申用法。
[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/RGsJx.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/RGsJx.jpg)
Does the same rule apply, or is the sentence correct? My grammar book says that 趨向補語 frequently acts as 可能補語 (for example: 自行車壞了，我騎不回去了！). It seems only natural, that the same restrictions should apply.

When I have 想不起來 on its own without 把，can I even unambiguously say, whether it is the negative of 可能補語 or 趨向補語？

**Tags:** direction-complement

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: 把... structure can not be used negatively. You can say *把他的名字想起來*, but can't say *把他的名字想不起來*. Sometimes, 别把....denotes negative, but meaning will be slightly changed.  
> **username_2**: 趋向补语 and 结果补语 （overlapping anyhow) suitably transformed (with 不 or 得）become 可能补语，想不起來 would seem to be such a transformed 趋向补语  
> **username_3**: 把他的名字想起來 is imperative, not declarative. You can make this negative, but it would become 不要把他的名字想起來  
> **username_0**: @username_3 the question is if and why the starred sentence is wrong.  
> **username_3**: @username_0 yes, so this is only a comment. And it is in response to dan's comment ...  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_4 on 2018-06-26. Score: 2 | Accepted answer

You cannot apply 把 to a verb phrase with potential particle because 把 is a dispositive marker. A dispositive marker marks an object to be disposited of by a verb. For example: in (把)他趕走. the object(他) is being disposited of by the verb 趕走 (chase away).

When a potential particles (得 or 不) is inserted between a verb and its resultive/ directional particle, that verb becomes a potential verb. For example: 趕走= chase away; 趕得走 = able to chase away. It can no longer be applied to [dispositive marker + object] structure which requires an active verb at the end.

Example: in 我(趕走)他 , (趕走) is an action verb; in 我(趕得走)他, (趕得走)is a potential verb- *You can, but you are not actively preforming the verb*)

For the same reason, 我把他的名字(想起來- *active verb*) is correct, but 我把他的名字(想不/得起來- *potential verb*) is incorrect

To make '我把他的名字想起來' negative , you have to modify 把 with a negative marker like 沒 or 未 , for example: "我(沒)把他的名字想起來"

> *When I have 想不起來 on its own without 把，can I even unambiguously say, whether it is the negative of 可能補語 or 趨向補語？*

Without 把, there's no object to be disposited of, '想起來' (active verb) or '想不起來/'想得起來 (potential verb) can be applied.

The sentence can be "我(想起)他的名字來" or, "我(想得起)他的名字來, "我(想不起)他的名字來"- (*you are not actively preforming the verb*)


---

