<blockquote>
  <p>我来是要了解这一地区的市场情况。</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I think the sentence does content the 是...的 structure. However, the 的 has been omitted. The full sentence is:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>我来是要了解这一地区的市场情况<strong>的</strong>。</p>
</blockquote>

<p>的 in 这一地区的市场情况 is used as the attributive 助词. </p>

<p>So, now the question becomes when 的 should be dropped ? I think people would drop the 的 in the 是...的 structure if there is another 的 that has been used previously. For example, 我来是要检查你们的工作， if I remove 的 in 你们的工作, then you should add 的 back at the end of the sentence. It would become 我来是要检查(你们)工作<strong>的</strong>.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-04-15T23:34:54.307Z
2018-04-15T23:34:54.307Z
dan
<p>Rephrase it a bit and you can get the <code>是……的</code> construction.</p>

<ol>
<li>我來(<strong>的</strong>)<strong>是</strong>要瞭解這一個區的市場情況。</li>
<li>我<strong>是</strong>要瞭解這一個區的市場情況來<strong>的</strong>。</li>
</ol>

<p>I wouldn't phrase this sentence using the <code>是……的</code> construction though, the detail <code>要瞭解這一個區的市場情況</code> is a bit long, plus it contains another <code>的</code> inside the detail, making it more easily misunderstood.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-04-15T15:56:39.867Z
Thanks. I guess my question is whether the original sentence contains the 是……的 construction. It seems it doesn't, because the 的 is missing. At least I was under the impression that 的 cannot be left out. So is this some other pattern?
Chris
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-04-15T16:03:59.800Z
@Chris `是X來的`, `來的是X`, `來是X的` are semantically equivalent. Sure, the original sentence doesn't strictly contain the `是……的` construction, but the content is there for you to rephrase it into that format, which is possibly why (as you noted) it reminds you of that structure.
dROOOze
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-04-15T15:47:46.737Z
2018-04-15T15:47:46.737Z
dROOOze
<p>I don't fully understand the grammatical structure of the following sentence:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>我来是要了解这一地区的市场情况。</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Specifically I'm confused about the 是 in this sentence. It reminds me of the 是……的 construction, but there's no corresponding 的.</p>

<p>Is there some kind of pattern in this sentence that I'm missing?</p>

<grammar>
是……的 construction without 的?
# 是……的 construction without 的?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2018-04-15)

I don't fully understand the grammatical structure of the following sentence:

> 我来是要了解这一地区的市场情况。

Specifically I'm confused about the 是 in this sentence. It reminds me of the 是……的 construction, but there's no corresponding 的.

Is there some kind of pattern in this sentence that I'm missing?

**Tags:** grammar


---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2018-04-15. Score: 1 | Accepted answer

> 我来是要了解这一地区的市场情况。

I think the sentence does content the 是...的 structure. However, the 的 has been omitted. The full sentence is:

> 我来是要了解这一地区的市场情况**的**。

的 in 这一地区的市场情况 is used as the attributive 助词.

So, now the question becomes when 的 should be dropped ? I think people would drop the 的 in the 是...的 structure if there is another 的 that has been used previously. For example, 我来是要检查你们的工作， if I remove 的 in 你们的工作, then you should add 的 back at the end of the sentence. It would become 我来是要检查(你们)工作**的**.


---

### Answer by username_2 on 2018-04-15. Score: 2

Rephrase it a bit and you can get the `是……的` construction.

1. 我來(**的**)**是**要瞭解這一個區的市場情況。
2. 我**是**要瞭解這一個區的市場情況來**的**。

I wouldn't phrase this sentence using the `是……的` construction though, the detail `要瞭解這一個區的市場情況` is a bit long, plus it contains another `的` inside the detail, making it more easily misunderstood.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Thanks. I guess my question is whether the original sentence contains the 是……的 construction. It seems it doesn't, because the 的 is missing. At least I was under the impression that 的 cannot be left out. So is this some other pattern?  
> **username_2**: @username_0 `是X來的`, `來的是X`, `來是X的` are semantically equivalent. Sure, the original sentence doesn't strictly contain the `是……的` construction, but the content is there for you to rephrase it into that format, which is possibly why (as you noted) it reminds you of that structure.  

---

