<p>This is an interesting question. As other commenters have noted, the answer may depend on convention (e.g., "回家") or grammar (possession vs. adverbial modification). It also may depend on the rules for Chinese prosody, which is what I will focus on here.</p>

<p>Tang Dynasty poetry was based on <em>disyllabic</em> (grouped into two syllables), <em>trochaic</em> (grouped into pairs having the form STRESSED unstressed, or, as I'll write it below, Xx) rhythms. Modern Chinese speech follows this basic pattern. Generally, Chinese utterances start with a stressed syllable (though a single unstressed introductory syllable may be used) and follow an alternating stressed/unstressed pattern. (One or two unstressed syllables may be used between stressed syllables, but having two adjacent stressed syllables is rare.)</p>

<p>Yip Po-Ching and Don Rimmington's <em>Chinese: A Comprehensive Grammar</em> gives the following example:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>我想再买一杯酒.<br>
  I'd like to buy another glass of wine.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This can be analyzed as 我想 // 再买 // 一杯 // 酒, with stress pattern Xx // Xx // Xx // X. </p>

<p>If the speaker wanted to add the word 去, the rhythm is disturbed:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>我想再去买一杯酒.  </p>
</blockquote>

<p>The most natural option is to parse this as 我想 // 再去 // 买 // 一杯 // 酒, but this is rhythmically unsatisfactory, since it leads to a stress pattern of  Xx // Xx // X // Xx // X. Both 再 and 买 should be stressed if the sentence is to maintain its emphasis on "buy" and "another", but this is not possible within the trochaic rhythm. </p>

<p>The solution is to delete the syllable 一 and say,</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>我想再去买杯酒.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This pairs up nicely into stressed/unstressed trochees: 我想 // 再去 // 买杯 // 酒; Xx // Xx // Xx // X.</p>

<p>Chinese speakers naturally add and delete words like 的 or 一 to fit the basic stressed/unstressed rhythm. The subject is complicated, and I'm not sure how well its completely understood. The difficulty for language speakers who aren't attuned to rhythmic variations is that it seems like the deletions are random, when in fact they're often manifestations of underlying rhythmical rules.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-02-01T00:40:51.037Z
Thanks, I was the aspect of the questions, I really didn't have a reason for.
MaoYiyi
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-05-15T06:38:33.827Z
+1 what a great answer!
Michael Robinson
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-01-31T19:01:57.153Z
2012-01-31T19:01:57.153Z
Alf
<p>I have a habit of using too many characters when I speak and write. </p>

<p>For example: </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>我回我的家。 </p>
</blockquote>

<p>我的 is not needed, and we can simply say 我回家。  </p>

<p>Is there a grammar rule for when to cut characters? A more generic example: </p>

<p>AB + CD = AD.  (A, B, C, D are characters and AB is one word and CD is another word). For example:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>啰哩啰嗦 is said as 啰嗦</p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-08-20T13:02:20.607Z
It's not words. "冰箱" is a word made of two characters, it's not two words. If you don't feel comfortable saying 'characters' when talking about speech, I don't have any better word to offer you but 'morphemes'.
clacke
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-01-30T20:33:07.603Z
+1 This is a nice question. :) I'm interested in the answers.
Alenanno
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-01-31T02:05:01.323Z
+1 I am native Chinese and I don't feel there is any grammar rule for this (or at least for the 我回家 example). Think about it: 我回家 = I go home. So why don't we say "I go to my home" in English when "I" want to go to "my" home, not anybody else's home?
Dante WWWW
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-01-31T05:10:27.910Z
@coolcfan, I have learned that, I was just giving an easy example.  Also it would be I'm going home.  Side note how to you say the progressive tense in Chinese.
MaoYiyi
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-01-31T09:02:27.467Z
@MaoYiyi for example, "What are you doing?" "I am watching TV" -- `-你在干什么？ -我在看电视。` Here `在` (or 正在 or 正) indicates a progressive tense. But a word that indicates a progressive tense is not always necessary. For example, in oral Chinese, `-你干嘛呢？ -看电视”` can also be a dialogue of "- What are you doing? - I am watching TV".
Dante WWWW
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-01-31T23:42:52.263Z
I think it is strange to talk of omitting 'characters'. What you are talking about is omitting words. Even in Chinese I think it would sound strange to talk about omitting 'characters' in speech.
Bathrobe
<characters>
Is there a rule that tells what characters can be omitted?
# Is there a rule that tells what characters can be omitted?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2012-01-30)

I have a habit of using too many characters when I speak and write.

For example:

> 我回我的家。

我的 is not needed, and we can simply say 我回家。

Is there a grammar rule for when to cut characters? A more generic example:

AB + CD = AD. (A, B, C, D are characters and AB is one word and CD is another word). For example:

> 啰哩啰嗦 is said as 啰嗦

**Tags:** characters

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: +1 This is a nice question. :) I'm interested in the answers.  
> **username_3**: +1 I am native Chinese and I don't feel there is any grammar rule for this (or at least for the 我回家 example). Think about it: 我回家 = I go home. So why don't we say "I go to my home" in English when "I" want to go to "my" home, not anybody else's home?  
> **username_0**: @coolcfan, I have learned that, I was just giving an easy example.  Also it would be I'm going home.  Side note how to you say the progressive tense in Chinese.  
> **username_3**: @username_0 for example, "What are you doing?" "I am watching TV" -- `-你在干什么？ -我在看电视。` Here `在` (or 正在 or 正) indicates a progressive tense. But a word that indicates a progressive tense is not always necessary. For example, in oral Chinese, `-你干嘛呢？ -看电视”` can also be a dialogue of "- What are you doing? - I am watching TV".  
> **username_4**: I think it is strange to talk of omitting 'characters'. What you are talking about is omitting words. Even in Chinese I think it would sound strange to talk about omitting 'characters' in speech.  
> **username_1**: It's not words. "冰箱" is a word made of two characters, it's not two words. If you don't feel comfortable saying 'characters' when talking about speech, I don't have any better word to offer you but 'morphemes'.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_5 on 2012-01-31. Score: 9 | Accepted answer

This is an interesting question. As other commenters have noted, the answer may depend on convention (e.g., "回家") or grammar (possession vs. adverbial modification). It also may depend on the rules for Chinese prosody, which is what I will focus on here.

Tang Dynasty poetry was based on *disyllabic* (grouped into two syllables), *trochaic* (grouped into pairs having the form STRESSED unstressed, or, as I'll write it below, Xx) rhythms. Modern Chinese speech follows this basic pattern. Generally, Chinese utterances start with a stressed syllable (though a single unstressed introductory syllable may be used) and follow an alternating stressed/unstressed pattern. (One or two unstressed syllables may be used between stressed syllables, but having two adjacent stressed syllables is rare.)

Yip Po-Ching and Don Rimmington's *Chinese: A Comprehensive Grammar* gives the following example:

> 我想再买一杯酒.  
> I'd like to buy another glass of wine.

This can be analyzed as 我想 // 再买 // 一杯 // 酒, with stress pattern Xx // Xx // Xx // X.

If the speaker wanted to add the word 去, the rhythm is disturbed:

> 我想再去买一杯酒.

The most natural option is to parse this as 我想 // 再去 // 买 // 一杯 // 酒, but this is rhythmically unsatisfactory, since it leads to a stress pattern of Xx // Xx // X // Xx // X. Both 再 and 买 should be stressed if the sentence is to maintain its emphasis on "buy" and "another", but this is not possible within the trochaic rhythm.

The solution is to delete the syllable 一 and say,

> 我想再去买杯酒.

This pairs up nicely into stressed/unstressed trochees: 我想 // 再去 // 买杯 // 酒; Xx // Xx // Xx // X.

Chinese speakers naturally add and delete words like 的 or 一 to fit the basic stressed/unstressed rhythm. The subject is complicated, and I'm not sure how well its completely understood. The difficulty for language speakers who aren't attuned to rhythmic variations is that it seems like the deletions are random, when in fact they're often manifestations of underlying rhythmical rules.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Thanks, I was the aspect of the questions, I really didn't have a reason for.  
> **username_6**: +1 what a great answer!  

---

