<p>I don't think 那 makes any difference between the two sentences. If I think of it more orally both sentences are ok. But I don't think native speaker would say something like that because 杀了 and 杀死 are both subjective. you might either say 他(试图)(tried)杀一个人，可是没有杀死 or 他杀了一个人，可是（那个人）没有死(the person didn't die).</p>
<p>But I think this is a little bit off the point since the article is mainly talking about 了 and 那.</p>
<p>那's usage will be something like</p>
<p>他吃了一个苹果，但是没有吃完(wrong)</p>
<p>他吃了那个苹果，但是没有吃完(right)</p>
<p>that is because 吃 can be halfway done while 杀 is more of a state where after that you assume the guy is dead.</p>
<p>when you say 他吃了那个苹果，但是没有吃完, the hidden part of the sentence might be 他吃了(几口)那个苹果，但是没有吃完</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-17T13:42:06.020Z
Sorry, can you elaborate on WHY 他吃了那个苹果，但是没有吃完 is right and the other one is not. It's very interesting.
coobit
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-17T18:51:18.967Z
@coobit Sentence 2 他吃了那个苹果，但是没有吃完 is okay because 吃 is not an all-or-none kind of action. You can eat some or all of the object. In other words, 吃了 can also mean "tasted“ or "had a bite". This sentence can mean "he tasted that apple, but did not finish eating it." Sentence1, however, quantifies what he has eaten. He has eaten one apple. So that does not leave any other reading of the verb 吃. Killing is not the same. The object of the verb 杀 is dead. If he's not dead, "杀了" makes no sense.
monalisa
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-17T18:57:21.847Z
Again, this is semantics, not syntax.
monalisa
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-18T11:14:19.913Z
@monalisa In other words, it depends on the degree to which the main verb propositionally entails a meaning of fulfillment, propositional meaning which may vary under the influence of some of the main verb's dependents, such as its objects (e.g. 一個/那個蘋果), and its affixes (e.g. the actualizer 了 which conveys somehow the meaning of accomplishment). All of these belong to a continuum, which can explain inconsistent judgments among the native speakers.
Starckman
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-18T15:00:19.273Z
*Sentence1, however, quantifies what he has eaten. He has eaten one apple. So that does not leave any other reading of the verb 吃.*  This.... I my native tongue and in English (I think) these two sentences: 1. "I ate (an|that) apple" 2. "I ate one apple" doesn't force meaning (eating it whole). But it does so in chinese, right? That is, in chinese "ate that apple" leave some ambiguity about whether it was a bite or the whole thing...  Interesting...
coobit
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-18T16:42:25.497Z
Yeah, I've almost forgotten to ask. What about: 他吃了个苹果，但是没有吃完 (no 一, no 那)? Is this still a right sentence or a wrong one?
coobit
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-18T19:21:54.960Z
@coobit 他吃了个苹果 is the same as 他吃了一个苹果. *他吃了个苹果，但是没有吃完 is contradictory.
monalisa
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-17T05:28:00.697Z
2021-02-17T05:28:00.697Z
koshiyomi
<p>I'm a native Chinese user and I can tell you [very definitively] based on my understanding of my first language that these two sentences are equally illogical (unless one interprets &quot;killed&quot; as &quot;attemped to kill&quot;), but neither of them are grammatically incorrect.</p>
<p>They are both illogical because, &quot;杀了&quot; means &quot;killed&quot; in the context of these two statements. So e.g. the first sentence means, translated very literally (so literally that it would sound unnatural in English), &quot;He killed a person, but did not kill (him/her) to death.&quot;, where the words in the brackets are words that are omitted in the Chinese sentence. You should see how (obviously) self-contradictory this sentence is in English - from my perspective the Chinese statement is just as self-contradictory as the English translation of it I gave.
Similarly, the second sentence means &quot;He killed that person, but did not kill (him/her) to death.&quot;</p>
<p>The difference of these two sentences (of &quot;那&quot; and &quot;一&quot;) is completely irrelevant to the determination of whether they are grammatical and whether they are logical.</p>
<p>Edit:</p>
<p>As correctly pointed out in koshiyomi's answer, if the verb &quot;杀&quot; is replaced with some other verb, e.g. &quot;吃&quot; for the two sentencces, then there is a <em>quite subtle</em> difference between the two sentences, because:</p>
<ol>
<li>It is perfectly natural to say a person ate something but didn't finish eating, whereas it is unnatural to say that a person killed someone but didn't kill him/her to death.</li>
<li>&quot;吃了一个苹果&quot; means &quot;ate one apple&quot; where &quot;一&quot; usually (but not always) suggests that one whole apple was eaten, but &quot;那&quot; in &quot;吃了那个苹果&quot; simply specifies which apple was eaten, with less suggestion that the whole apple had been eaten. Both sentences can be commonly understood as suggesting that the whole apple was eaten though (in cases where it has not been clarified whether the whole apple was eaten or not).</li>
</ol>
<p>N.B. That the sentences are illogical does not mean that they cannot be used to good effect - e.g. often contradictory sentences are utilized in literature to achieve certain effects. For example, in literature you might have something like
&quot;He killed that person.
But no, he did not die.&quot;
where the first sentence describes something that is not true but merely apparently true. I remember that this kind of contradictory decriptions were used quite often in the Japanese visual novel Fate/Stay Night.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-17T13:39:51.820Z
Thanks for the opinion. I somewhat agree. Looks like 杀 is being used in some kind of context, story where killing people is not final, like in the Altered Carbon where you can kill a body, but to kill a man you need to destroy his data copy.
coobit
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-17T17:43:56.070Z
I do think that “attempted to kill” could be an acceptable interpretation. Chinese doesn’t use the idea of “tried to” as much as you might see in English - it’s far more likely to be juxtaposed with something like “but it was unsuccessful.”
Mou某
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-17T18:11:48.810Z
No I was talking about some futuristic story where word "kill" and "kill" are different. in one instance you really kill but the body, in other you kill the person (that is permanently :) But clearly that is not the case here.
coobit
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-17T23:08:03.147Z
Hi @coobit , indeed you can define a word to mean, in some special context, someting different from its meaning in ordinary contexts. So (I agree with you that) certainly "kill" can be interpreted as you mentioned in the context you mentioned, in which case "killed someone" does not imply that the person is dead after the "killing". But I assumed that the context of the sentences are normal/ordinary, since no specification of the context was provided. Without this assumption, I would not be able to determine the logicality of the statements.
user53754683
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-17T23:19:39.540Z
Hi @Mou某♦ , I agree with you that some native Chinese users might say "kill" when they meant "attempt to kill", but that alone doesn't make the usage proper Chinese - native Chinese users also make errors, and in fact most of them make errors often. I personally find the interpretation of "kill" as "attempt to kill" to feel extremely unnatural in modern Mandarin(s) and modern Cantonese and I would thus personally never use the word "kill" to mean "attempt to kill". I'm not sure about how exactly "杀" could be used in ancient or classical Chinese though.
user53754683
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-17T23:37:10.800Z
@Mou某♦ I would add however that [that the sentences are illogical does not mean that they cannot be used to good effect] - e.g. often contradictory sentences are utilized in literature to achieve certain effects. For example, in literature you might have something like "He killed that person. But no, he did not die." where the first sentence describes something that is not true but merely apparently true. I remember that this kind of contradictory decriptions were used quite often in the Japanese visual novel Fate/Stay Night.
user53754683
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-18T22:47:49.983Z
What if the sentence was something like "他殺一個人殺了三天也沒有殺死". Would you still perceive it as contradictory?
Curiosity
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-20T00:33:41.147Z
@Curiosity I think this sentence sounds [perfectly natural] since the first "殺" in the sentence basically means "be killing" in English and the "殺了" in the sentence therefore means "was killing" or "have/had been killing". But the sentence still sounds [informal].
user53754683
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-20T08:40:51.380Z
@Curiosity this is a very, very good example. Grammatical and sensical.
L Parker
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-20T09:11:48.317Z
Some thoughts on your new sentence: 1. 殺了三天 is adverbial on the first 殺 (in 殺一個人) 2. In a way, 了 is there to highlight the temporal extent of the killing (three days) 3. How is that different from 他殺那個人殺了三天也沒有殺死, you say? With 一個人, it seems whoever happens to be his victim does not matter; the sentence only reflects how bad (or sadistic) he is as a killer. With 那個人, the focus now seems to have shifted to the one being killed (as in how resilient to being killed they are). Both are sensical as there is sufficient information now (the object of 沒有殺死 is clear); 也 somehow played a connective role.
L Parker
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-20T09:25:29.137Z
Quote:- "他殺一個人殺了三天也沒有殺死" I believe in this kind of situation, the sentence would go something like -- 他追殺一個人追殺了三天, 但也沒有殺死 ?
Wayne Cheah
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-20T09:29:50.487Z
@WayneCheah a more conservative interpretation is more like the *lingchi* (凌遲) kind of killing, I guess
L Parker
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-20T09:54:04.937Z
Some argue 殺 carries with it the indispensable element of ‘death’, which I agree. I also am convinced 殺了他 does sound like he is killed and is dead (for reasons beyond my explanation, as of now). But as evidenced by your new sentence, at most there is *intended* death (with the suitable act to realise it, of course) in 殺, not necessarily *factual* death. Normally intended death progresses to factual death quickly, which resolves all linguistic and logical issues; however, their discrepancy is widened by your preset 三天, which makes realising and differentiating the two kinds of deaths easier.
L Parker
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-21T04:25:12.240Z
There is also the curious one about "half-dead", ”半死”
Wayne Cheah
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-17T06:35:04.437Z
2021-11-15T10:45:11.233Z
2021-11-15T10:45:11.233Z
user53754683
<p>Sentence 1. 他杀了一个人，可是没有杀死。</p>
<p>他 &quot;he&quot; - Subject</p>
<p>杀了 &quot;killed&quot; - Verb + result</p>
<p>一个人 &quot;one person (someone)&quot; - Object</p>
<p>可是 &quot;but&quot; - Conjunction</p>
<p>没有 &quot;did not&quot; - Negative element</p>
<p>杀死 &quot;kill (till that person died)&quot; - Verb + result</p>
<p>You can parse the sentence as above, and it is a grammatical sentence. What is wrong is the meaning, or the contradictory logic of the two parts. The equivalent English sentence &quot;He killed a person, but he didn't kill (that person)&quot; is also grammatical but non-sensical.</p>
<p>Sentence 2. 他杀了那个人，可是没有杀死。</p>
<p>他 &quot;he&quot; - Subject</p>
<p>杀了 &quot;killed&quot; - Verb + result</p>
<p>那个人 &quot;that person&quot; - Object</p>
<p>可是 &quot;but&quot; - Conjunction</p>
<p>没有 &quot;did not&quot; - Negative element</p>
<p>杀死 &quot;kill (till that person died)&quot; - Verb + result</p>
<p>It's basically the same problem. Grammatical but non-sensical because the two parts contradict each other. The only difference between the two sentences is the object 一个人 vs. 那个人. 一个人 is non-specific, someone. 那个人 is a specific person.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-16T18:25:30.313Z
There is a difference between the two. The 2nd one is logical to a chinese person, while the 1st is not really. Well, according to the book that is.
coobit
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-16T18:35:45.143Z
"The 2nd one is logical to a Chinese person". - I beg to differ. This sentence is not logical to this Chinese speaker. If you killed a person, you killed a person. It makes no difference if that is an unspecified someone or a specific person. You cannot "kill" and "not kill" the same person.
monalisa
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-16T18:40:47.410Z
Well, that is why I ask. They both seemed the same illogical to me, but I've given a link to a research paper where this exmaple is raised and I tend to trust those things.
coobit
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-17T05:23:05.200Z
@coobit I did take a look at the research paper (the part that uses this sentence, not the whole paper). And I still cannot agree that sentence 2 is unproblematic. Perhaps it is one of those things that even native speakers cannot agree on?
monalisa
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-17T05:47:49.190Z
"If you killed a person, you killed a person" Yea, you cannot be half pregnant?
Wayne Cheah
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-11-22T14:56:46.743Z
I wonder whether this sentence is "logical" in any language?  他谋杀一个人, 但那个人没有死, (He murdered a person, but that person did not die) or, -- 太阳那么热，我冷得要死, (The sun is so hot, I'll die from the cold)?
Wayne Cheah
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-16T17:48:06.693Z
2021-02-16T17:48:06.693Z
monalisa
<p>Wouldn't that apply to English too?</p>
<blockquote>
<ol>
<li><p>*He tried to kill a person, but didn't kill off <em>a</em> person.</p>
</li>
<li><p>He tried to kill that person, but didn’t kill off <em>the</em> person.</p>
</li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
<p>可是没有杀死 has the hidden object 一个人 and 那个人 respectively.</p>
<p>However, 可是没有杀死一个人 is <em>not</em> ungrammatical, only <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_green_ideas_sleep_furiously" rel="nofollow noreferrer">semantically nonsensical</a>, because 'who was killed (but not killed to death)' was not made sufficiently clear due to the lack of indication by 那. That is to say, without proper indication, we only know from the latter half of the sentence that someone nearly died, but who specifically that person was and why knowing the fact that s/he didn’t die matters are not made clear.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-16T16:40:45.487Z
Sorry, I don't see how english variant of 2nd sentence makes it grammatical. I'm not a native English speaker, but  both of them stated in English seem ungrammatical to me.I mean that you either kill someone or not, there cannot be any ambiguity since killing is not revocable act.
coobit
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-16T16:41:44.543Z
Ah my fault. Shouldn’t have put the bracket in the sentences. Was thinking in Chinese.
L Parker
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-16T16:46:19.300Z
Wait a second... What makes you think that we are talking about "trying to kill" and not "actually killing"? You are cheating... :)
coobit
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-16T16:48:50.947Z
That is an attempt in contrasting 殺 and 殺死. Of course both sentences are translated the same in these regards and it is in my opinion a fair comparison.
L Parker
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-16T16:54:09.483Z
Interesting. Thanks. It gives me something to think about.
coobit
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-16T16:55:48.423Z
Would you translate this sentence 我杀他。as "I'm killing him (habitually)" ?
coobit
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-16T17:50:41.977Z
他杀了一个人 does not mean "he tried to kill a person". It means "he killed a person".
monalisa
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-16T18:35:21.967Z
So, how would you translate 我杀他。?
coobit
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-16T18:51:21.523Z
Without context, I wouldn't attempt a translation."我杀他" is rather unnatural as a stand-alone sentence.
monalisa
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-17T00:21:28.077Z
My sole purpose of translating 殺了 into "tried to kill" was to compare 一 and 那. I didn't even read the source while choosing this translation. Ljungqvist (2003) also didn't provide any additional context. Finally, may I argue that 殺了 refers to merely the *completion* of the action "to kill", not the *result* of the action "to kill" here. Normally it would imply both, but the latter no longer stands because of what follows, 可是没有殺死. Of course, in my view, the ambiguity in 殺了 and the omission of the object are good reasons why these are 病句 (although not ungrammatical).
L Parker
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-17T00:55:57.603Z
One needs more justification for using the bare infinitive in 我殺他. Not necessarily as a habit, perhaps e.g. (1) as an intent, as in 我想殺他 (I want to kill him), or (2) as a markerless verb in the future tense, as in 亞伯拉罕害怕埃及人殺他 (Abraham is afraid the Egyptians will kill him).
L Parker
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-17T09:42:07.617Z
In "He tried to kill a person, but didn't kill off a person", is the former person the same as the latter person or are two different people involved here? Why not just say "He tried to kill a person, but didn't kill off that person"?
joehua
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-17T10:02:07.660Z
By adding ‘that person’ you have conferred a 那-like nuance to the latter half of the sentence. I’m not really against that; after all, as I said, these sentences are 病句 for reasons listed above, and even if grammatical are very poor examples in illustrating the many functions of 了.
L Parker
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-17T13:36:08.650Z
Wait... is it possible to read  我殺他 standing as a complete sentence in future tense? "I (about to) kill him."? I mean of couse there should be some appropriate context around this sentence for this. But is it possible in principal? If so... it is quiet refreshing to me... :)
coobit
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-17T13:52:41.233Z
No, it is not possible (to me).
L Parker
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-16T16:24:54.907Z
2021-02-16T16:42:05.660Z
2021-02-16T16:42:05.660Z
L Parker
<p>In the daily usage of <strong>spoken Chinese</strong>, native Chinese people understand their meanings at once and don't really care or notice the grammar.</p>
<ul>
<li><strong>&quot;他杀了一个人，但是没有杀死&quot;</strong>(He killed a person, but the person is not dead), the native Chinese can still get the correct meaning you wanna express: <strong>He tried to kill the person, but the person is not dead yet.</strong></li>
<li><strong>&quot;他杀了那个人，但是没有杀死&quot;</strong>(He killed that person, but the person is not dead), the native Chinese can still get the meaning you wanna express: <strong>He tried to kill, but the person is not dead yet.</strong></li>
</ul>
<p>However, as for <strong>formal Chinese writings</strong>, it's better to use the correct grammar for making unambiguous, exlicit and specific expressions (especially
related to laws), same meanings with above spoken Chinese.</p>
<ul>
<li><strong>他去杀一个人，但是那人没有死</strong></li>
<li><strong>他去杀那个人，但是那人没有死</strong></li>
</ul>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-11-22T13:41:42.490Z
2021-11-22T13:41:42.490Z
Avocado
<p>The two sentences are both fine. The difference should be squarely put on &quot;一個人&quot; and &quot;那個人&quot;.</p>
<p>&quot;一個人&quot; - a non-specific general statement. The person can be any person.</p>
<p>&quot;那個人&quot; - a more definite statement that refers to a specific person, &quot;that person&quot; not anybody else.</p>
<p>Example:</p>
<p>Please give me an (一個) apple (anyone from a pile of apple stock).</p>
<p>Please give me that (那個) apple (the specific one in the stockpile).</p>
<p>By the way, instead of saying &quot;他杀了那个人，可是没有杀死。&quot;, a little twist can make it more logically sound: &quot;他想杀了那个人，可是没有杀死。&quot; - He wanted to kill that person but failed (didn't succeed).</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-11-22T22:41:50.773Z
2021-11-22T23:20:04.953Z
2021-11-22T23:20:04.953Z
r13
<p>There are two sentences:</p>
<ol>
<li>他杀了一个人，可是没有杀死。</li>
<li>他杀了那个人，可是没有杀死。</li>
</ol>
<p>Some people say that sentence 1 is ungrammatical (better say -- illogical), while sentence 2 is OK.</p>
<p>Why is it so? Why 那 makes such a big difference?</p>
<p>P.S. the examples are taken from :</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Aspect, tense and mood : Context dependency and the marker LE in
Mandarin Chinese Ljungqvist, Marita</p>
</blockquote>
<p>p.s.s One guy told me that it is 一个人 conflicts with 可是没有杀死. That is, &quot;one man&quot; means that the killed person is unknown to the utterer but 可是没有杀死 says that the speaker somehow knows much more than the 一个人 phrasing suggests.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-16T20:09:09.607Z
Doesn't the source you mention offer an explanation? Naturally, the question of the grammaticality of the sentences is hard to answer and might need some kind of quantitative answer. One person saying "it sounds weird to me" doesn't really cut it. You can find native speakers who disagree on much more basic examples. :) As a side note, Marita supervised by BA thesis in Chinese ten years ago, but I haven't read the source in question.
Olle Linge
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-17T17:31:49.820Z
@OlleLinge The source uses the sentences to illustrate the use of "了". The author states simply that sentence 2 is not problematic, without any elaboration.
monalisa
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-17T18:17:53.050Z
@OlleLinge Please, take a look at koshiyomi answer lower. He has stated that the second sentence 2. 他吃了那个苹果，但是没有吃完  is alright. While 1. 他吃了一个苹果，但是没有吃完 is wrong. Can you explain why?
coobit
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-17T18:36:48.320Z
This is not my area of expertise, so I think other people might be better at answering the question. I did check your original sentences with a native speaker teacher I trust a lot for grammaticality judgements and she thinks both the original sentences are wrong. I also checked the two sentences with 吃 here and she agrees that (2) is okay. If forced to give an explanation, I would say it's related to the fact that (1) has quantity specified ("one apple" rather than "an apple") and (2) does not. It could also be related to what type of reference it is (特指, 泛指, etc.).
Olle Linge
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-17T19:08:45.290Z
I just added a comment under koshiyomi's answer regarding the "apple" sentence. Take a look and see if that makes sense.
monalisa
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-17T22:15:03.213Z
Yes, your comment maxes perfect sense, I think!
Olle Linge
<grammar>
Strange case of 了: 他杀了一个人 vs 他杀了那个人
# Strange case of 了: 他杀了一个人 vs 他杀了那个人

(Asked by: username_0 on 2021-02-16)

There are two sentences:

1. 他杀了一个人，可是没有杀死。
2. 他杀了那个人，可是没有杀死。

Some people say that sentence 1 is ungrammatical (better say -- illogical), while sentence 2 is OK.

Why is it so? Why 那 makes such a big difference?

P.S. the examples are taken from :

> Aspect, tense and mood : Context dependency and the marker LE in
> Mandarin Chinese Ljungqvist, Marita

p.s.s One guy told me that it is 一个人 conflicts with 可是没有杀死. That is, "one man" means that the killed person is unknown to the utterer but 可是没有杀死 says that the speaker somehow knows much more than the 一个人 phrasing suggests.

**Tags:** grammar

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Doesn't the source you mention offer an explanation? Naturally, the question of the grammaticality of the sentences is hard to answer and might need some kind of quantitative answer. One person saying "it sounds weird to me" doesn't really cut it. You can find native speakers who disagree on much more basic examples. :) As a side note, Marita supervised by BA thesis in Chinese ten years ago, but I haven't read the source in question.  
> **username_2**: @username_1 The source uses the sentences to illustrate the use of "了". The author states simply that sentence 2 is not problematic, without any elaboration.  
> **username_0**: @username_1 Please, take a look at username_3 answer lower. He has stated that the second sentence 2. 他吃了那个苹果，但是没有吃完  is alright. While 1. 他吃了一个苹果，但是没有吃完 is wrong. Can you explain why?  
> **username_1**: This is not my area of expertise, so I think other people might be better at answering the question. I did check your original sentences with a native speaker teacher I trust a lot for grammaticality judgements and she thinks both the original sentences are wrong. I also checked the two sentences with 吃 here and she agrees that (2) is okay. If forced to give an explanation, I would say it's related to the fact that (1) has quantity specified ("one apple" rather than "an apple") and (2) does not. It could also be related to what type of reference it is (特指, 泛指, etc.).  
> **username_2**: I just added a comment under username_3's answer regarding the "apple" sentence. Take a look and see if that makes sense.  
> **username_1**: Yes, your comment maxes perfect sense, I think!  

---

## 6 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2021-02-17. Score: 3 | Accepted answer

I don't think 那 makes any difference between the two sentences. If I think of it more orally both sentences are ok. But I don't think native speaker would say something like that because 杀了 and 杀死 are both subjective. you might either say 他(试图)(tried)杀一个人，可是没有杀死 or 他杀了一个人，可是（那个人）没有死(the person didn't die).

But I think this is a little bit off the point since the article is mainly talking about 了 and 那.

那's usage will be something like

他吃了一个苹果，但是没有吃完(wrong)

他吃了那个苹果，但是没有吃完(right)

that is because 吃 can be halfway done while 杀 is more of a state where after that you assume the guy is dead.

when you say 他吃了那个苹果，但是没有吃完, the hidden part of the sentence might be 他吃了(几口)那个苹果，但是没有吃完

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Sorry, can you elaborate on WHY 他吃了那个苹果，但是没有吃完 is right and the other one is not. It's very interesting.  
> **username_2**: @username_0 Sentence 2 他吃了那个苹果，但是没有吃完 is okay because 吃 is not an all-or-none kind of action. You can eat some or all of the object. In other words, 吃了 can also mean "tasted“ or "had a bite". This sentence can mean "he tasted that apple, but did not finish eating it." Sentence1, however, quantifies what he has eaten. He has eaten one apple. So that does not leave any other reading of the verb 吃. Killing is not the same. The object of the verb 杀 is dead. If he's not dead, "杀了" makes no sense.  
> **username_2**: Again, this is semantics, not syntax.  
> **username_4**: @username_2 In other words, it depends on the degree to which the main verb propositionally entails a meaning of fulfillment, propositional meaning which may vary under the influence of some of the main verb's dependents, such as its objects (e.g. 一個/那個蘋果), and its affixes (e.g. the actualizer 了 which conveys somehow the meaning of accomplishment). All of these belong to a continuum, which can explain inconsistent judgments among the native speakers.  
> **username_0**: *Sentence1, however, quantifies what he has eaten. He has eaten one apple. So that does not leave any other reading of the verb 吃.*  This.... I my native tongue and in English (I think) these two sentences: 1. "I ate (an|that) apple" 2. "I ate one apple" doesn't force meaning (eating it whole). But it does so in chinese, right? That is, in chinese "ate that apple" leave some ambiguity about whether it was a bite or the whole thing...  Interesting...  
> **username_0**: Yeah, I've almost forgotten to ask. What about: 他吃了个苹果，但是没有吃完 (no 一, no 那)? Is this still a right sentence or a wrong one?  
> **username_2**: @username_0 他吃了个苹果 is the same as 他吃了一个苹果. *他吃了个苹果，但是没有吃完 is contradictory.  

---

### Answer by username_5 on 2021-02-17. Score: 4

I'm a native Chinese user and I can tell you [very definitively] based on my understanding of my first language that these two sentences are equally illogical (unless one interprets "killed" as "attemped to kill"), but neither of them are grammatically incorrect.

They are both illogical because, "杀了" means "killed" in the context of these two statements. So e.g. the first sentence means, translated very literally (so literally that it would sound unnatural in English), "He killed a person, but did not kill (him/her) to death.", where the words in the brackets are words that are omitted in the Chinese sentence. You should see how (obviously) self-contradictory this sentence is in English - from my perspective the Chinese statement is just as self-contradictory as the English translation of it I gave.
Similarly, the second sentence means "He killed that person, but did not kill (him/her) to death."

The difference of these two sentences (of "那" and "一") is completely irrelevant to the determination of whether they are grammatical and whether they are logical.

Edit:

As correctly pointed out in username_3's answer, if the verb "杀" is replaced with some other verb, e.g. "吃" for the two sentencces, then there is a *quite subtle* difference between the two sentences, because:

1. It is perfectly natural to say a person ate something but didn't finish eating, whereas it is unnatural to say that a person killed someone but didn't kill him/her to death.
2. "吃了一个苹果" means "ate one apple" where "一" usually (but not always) suggests that one whole apple was eaten, but "那" in "吃了那个苹果" simply specifies which apple was eaten, with less suggestion that the whole apple had been eaten. Both sentences can be commonly understood as suggesting that the whole apple was eaten though (in cases where it has not been clarified whether the whole apple was eaten or not).

N.B. That the sentences are illogical does not mean that they cannot be used to good effect - e.g. often contradictory sentences are utilized in literature to achieve certain effects. For example, in literature you might have something like
"He killed that person.
But no, he did not die."
where the first sentence describes something that is not true but merely apparently true. I remember that this kind of contradictory decriptions were used quite often in the Japanese visual novel Fate/Stay Night.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Thanks for the opinion. I somewhat agree. Looks like 杀 is being used in some kind of context, story where killing people is not final, like in the Altered Carbon where you can kill a body, but to kill a man you need to destroy his data copy.  
> **username_6**: I do think that “attempted to kill” could be an acceptable interpretation. Chinese doesn’t use the idea of “tried to” as much as you might see in English - it’s far more likely to be juxtaposed with something like “but it was unsuccessful.”  
> **username_0**: No I was talking about some futuristic story where word "kill" and "kill" are different. in one instance you really kill but the body, in other you kill the person (that is permanently :) But clearly that is not the case here.  
> **username_5**: Hi @username_0 , indeed you can define a word to mean, in some special context, someting different from its meaning in ordinary contexts. So (I agree with you that) certainly "kill" can be interpreted as you mentioned in the context you mentioned, in which case "killed someone" does not imply that the person is dead after the "killing". But I assumed that the context of the sentences are normal/ordinary, since no specification of the context was provided. Without this assumption, I would not be able to determine the logicality of the statements.  
> **username_5**: Hi @username_6♦ , I agree with you that some native Chinese users might say "kill" when they meant "attempt to kill", but that alone doesn't make the usage proper Chinese - native Chinese users also make errors, and in fact most of them make errors often. I personally find the interpretation of "kill" as "attempt to kill" to feel extremely unnatural in modern Mandarin(s) and modern Cantonese and I would thus personally never use the word "kill" to mean "attempt to kill". I'm not sure about how exactly "杀" could be used in ancient or classical Chinese though.  
> **username_5**: @username_6♦ I would add however that [that the sentences are illogical does not mean that they cannot be used to good effect] - e.g. often contradictory sentences are utilized in literature to achieve certain effects. For example, in literature you might have something like "He killed that person. But no, he did not die." where the first sentence describes something that is not true but merely apparently true. I remember that this kind of contradictory decriptions were used quite often in the Japanese visual novel Fate/Stay Night.  
> **username_7**: What if the sentence was something like "他殺一個人殺了三天也沒有殺死". Would you still perceive it as contradictory?  
> **username_5**: @username_7 I think this sentence sounds [perfectly natural] since the first "殺" in the sentence basically means "be killing" in English and the "殺了" in the sentence therefore means "was killing" or "have/had been killing". But the sentence still sounds [informal].  
> **username_8**: @username_7 this is a very, very good example. Grammatical and sensical.  
> **username_8**: Some thoughts on your new sentence: 1. 殺了三天 is adverbial on the first 殺 (in 殺一個人) 2. In a way, 了 is there to highlight the temporal extent of the killing (three days) 3. How is that different from 他殺那個人殺了三天也沒有殺死, you say? With 一個人, it seems whoever happens to be his victim does not matter; the sentence only reflects how bad (or sadistic) he is as a killer. With 那個人, the focus now seems to have shifted to the one being killed (as in how resilient to being killed they are). Both are sensical as there is sufficient information now (the object of 沒有殺死 is clear); 也 somehow played a connective role.  
> **username_9**: Quote:- "他殺一個人殺了三天也沒有殺死" I believe in this kind of situation, the sentence would go something like -- 他追殺一個人追殺了三天, 但也沒有殺死 ?  
> **username_8**: @username_9 a more conservative interpretation is more like the *lingchi* (凌遲) kind of killing, I guess  
> **username_8**: Some argue 殺 carries with it the indispensable element of ‘death’, which I agree. I also am convinced 殺了他 does sound like he is killed and is dead (for reasons beyond my explanation, as of now). But as evidenced by your new sentence, at most there is *intended* death (with the suitable act to realise it, of course) in 殺, not necessarily *factual* death. Normally intended death progresses to factual death quickly, which resolves all linguistic and logical issues; however, their discrepancy is widened by your preset 三天, which makes realising and differentiating the two kinds of deaths easier.  
> **username_9**: There is also the curious one about "half-dead", ”半死”  

---

### Answer by username_2 on 2021-02-16. Score: 3

Sentence 1. 他杀了一个人，可是没有杀死。

他 "he" - Subject

杀了 "killed" - Verb + result

一个人 "one person (someone)" - Object

可是 "but" - Conjunction

没有 "did not" - Negative element

杀死 "kill (till that person died)" - Verb + result

You can parse the sentence as above, and it is a grammatical sentence. What is wrong is the meaning, or the contradictory logic of the two parts. The equivalent English sentence "He killed a person, but he didn't kill (that person)" is also grammatical but non-sensical.

Sentence 2. 他杀了那个人，可是没有杀死。

他 "he" - Subject

杀了 "killed" - Verb + result

那个人 "that person" - Object

可是 "but" - Conjunction

没有 "did not" - Negative element

杀死 "kill (till that person died)" - Verb + result

It's basically the same problem. Grammatical but non-sensical because the two parts contradict each other. The only difference between the two sentences is the object 一个人 vs. 那个人. 一个人 is non-specific, someone. 那个人 is a specific person.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: There is a difference between the two. The 2nd one is logical to a chinese person, while the 1st is not really. Well, according to the book that is.  
> **username_2**: "The 2nd one is logical to a Chinese person". - I beg to differ. This sentence is not logical to this Chinese speaker. If you killed a person, you killed a person. It makes no difference if that is an unspecified someone or a specific person. You cannot "kill" and "not kill" the same person.  
> **username_0**: Well, that is why I ask. They both seemed the same illogical to me, but I've given a link to a research paper where this exmaple is raised and I tend to trust those things.  
> **username_2**: @username_0 I did take a look at the research paper (the part that uses this sentence, not the whole paper). And I still cannot agree that sentence 2 is unproblematic. Perhaps it is one of those things that even native speakers cannot agree on?  
> **username_9**: "If you killed a person, you killed a person" Yea, you cannot be half pregnant?  
> **username_9**: I wonder whether this sentence is "logical" in any language?  他谋杀一个人, 但那个人没有死, (He murdered a person, but that person did not die) or, -- 太阳那么热，我冷得要死, (The sun is so hot, I'll die from the cold)?  

---

### Answer by username_8 on 2021-02-16. Score: 3

Wouldn't that apply to English too?

> 1. \*He tried to kill a person, but didn't kill off *a* person.
> 2. He tried to kill that person, but didn’t kill off *the* person.

可是没有杀死 has the hidden object 一个人 and 那个人 respectively.

However, 可是没有杀死一个人 is *not* ungrammatical, only [semantically nonsensical](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_green_ideas_sleep_furiously), because 'who was killed (but not killed to death)' was not made sufficiently clear due to the lack of indication by 那. That is to say, without proper indication, we only know from the latter half of the sentence that someone nearly died, but who specifically that person was and why knowing the fact that s/he didn’t die matters are not made clear.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Sorry, I don't see how english variant of 2nd sentence makes it grammatical. I'm not a native English speaker, but  both of them stated in English seem ungrammatical to me.I mean that you either kill someone or not, there cannot be any ambiguity since killing is not revocable act.  
> **username_8**: Ah my fault. Shouldn’t have put the bracket in the sentences. Was thinking in Chinese.  
> **username_0**: Wait a second... What makes you think that we are talking about "trying to kill" and not "actually killing"? You are cheating... :)  
> **username_8**: That is an attempt in contrasting 殺 and 殺死. Of course both sentences are translated the same in these regards and it is in my opinion a fair comparison.  
> **username_0**: Interesting. Thanks. It gives me something to think about.  
> **username_0**: Would you translate this sentence 我杀他。as "I'm killing him (habitually)" ?  
> **username_2**: 他杀了一个人 does not mean "he tried to kill a person". It means "he killed a person".  
> **username_0**: So, how would you translate 我杀他。?  
> **username_2**: Without context, I wouldn't attempt a translation."我杀他" is rather unnatural as a stand-alone sentence.  
> **username_8**: My sole purpose of translating 殺了 into "tried to kill" was to compare 一 and 那. I didn't even read the source while choosing this translation. Ljungqvist (2003) also didn't provide any additional context. Finally, may I argue that 殺了 refers to merely the *completion* of the action "to kill", not the *result* of the action "to kill" here. Normally it would imply both, but the latter no longer stands because of what follows, 可是没有殺死. Of course, in my view, the ambiguity in 殺了 and the omission of the object are good reasons why these are 病句 (although not ungrammatical).  
> **username_8**: One needs more justification for using the bare infinitive in 我殺他. Not necessarily as a habit, perhaps e.g. (1) as an intent, as in 我想殺他 (I want to kill him), or (2) as a markerless verb in the future tense, as in 亞伯拉罕害怕埃及人殺他 (Abraham is afraid the Egyptians will kill him).  
> **username_10**: In "He tried to kill a person, but didn't kill off a person", is the former person the same as the latter person or are two different people involved here? Why not just say "He tried to kill a person, but didn't kill off that person"?  
> **username_8**: By adding ‘that person’ you have conferred a 那-like nuance to the latter half of the sentence. I’m not really against that; after all, as I said, these sentences are 病句 for reasons listed above, and even if grammatical are very poor examples in illustrating the many functions of 了.  
> **username_0**: Wait... is it possible to read  我殺他 standing as a complete sentence in future tense? "I (about to) kill him."? I mean of couse there should be some appropriate context around this sentence for this. But is it possible in principal? If so... it is quiet refreshing to me... :)  
> **username_8**: No, it is not possible (to me).  

---

### Answer by username_11 on 2021-11-22. Score: 0

In the daily usage of **spoken Chinese**, native Chinese people understand their meanings at once and don't really care or notice the grammar.

* **"他杀了一个人，但是没有杀死"**(He killed a person, but the person is not dead), the native Chinese can still get the correct meaning you wanna express: **He tried to kill the person, but the person is not dead yet.**
* **"他杀了那个人，但是没有杀死"**(He killed that person, but the person is not dead), the native Chinese can still get the meaning you wanna express: **He tried to kill, but the person is not dead yet.**

However, as for **formal Chinese writings**, it's better to use the correct grammar for making unambiguous, exlicit and specific expressions (especially
related to laws), same meanings with above spoken Chinese.

* **他去杀一个人，但是那人没有死**
* **他去杀那个人，但是那人没有死**


---

### Answer by username_12 on 2021-11-22. Score: 0

The two sentences are both fine. The difference should be squarely put on "一個人" and "那個人".

"一個人" - a non-specific general statement. The person can be any person.

"那個人" - a more definite statement that refers to a specific person, "that person" not anybody else.

Example:

Please give me an (一個) apple (anyone from a pile of apple stock).

Please give me that (那個) apple (the specific one in the stockpile).

By the way, instead of saying "他杀了那个人，可是没有杀死。", a little twist can make it more logically sound: "他想杀了那个人，可是没有杀死。" - He wanted to kill that person but failed (didn't succeed).


---

