<p>为 means "for", as most people know. In this case,  "for" is used as in "unload the cargo for the truck". This usage is slightly less orthodox, but still makes quite some sense if you take it as a personification, treating the truck as if it has a mind, but cannot unload the cargo by itself, so you need to unload the cargo for it. This usage appears because everyone handles objects in their mind differently, and there are people who are used to this sort of personification, as demonstrated when someone consoles an object if the object falls from their hands or a table (mostly kids as adults don't express their thoughts as much. I cannot be sure, but this may be related to empathy). This kind of usage is further proliferated by human interactions in the society, where people tend to be affected and pick up others' language usage patterns.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-01-31T15:51:19.547Z
yup. It may conceptually be slightly weird, but again, people aren't robots.;)
Master Sparkles
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-01-31T20:56:23.163Z
I agree with this answer but I don't think doing something for some object is personification or metaphorical. You can buy flowers for a room, make cover for a book, unload cargo for a truck. Not being idiomatic or correct in English language does not mean they are illogical to say in any language.
NS.X.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-01-31T21:56:28.760Z
@NS.X you actually can't unload cargo "for" a truck in English, it makes no sense to us (the other two usages are correct) because the cargo isn't part of the truck once unloaded, unlike the first two cases. Just out of curiosity- does the usage in the truck case not seem a bit strange for native chinese speakers?
Master Sparkles
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-02-01T02:03:32.847Z
@MasterSparkles It's not strange at all - it's the right usage. Colloquial version is 给 (给卡车卸货). If 'unloading cargo for a truck' doesn't make sense in English then I can't think of any _analogy to English_ to help explain this, but it makes perfect sense in Chinese. Doing something for some object does not require the 'thing' to be a part of the object.
NS.X.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-02-01T02:52:49.810Z
How interesting! 給 makes more slightly more intuitive sense to me... Thanks for the clarification.
Master Sparkles
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-02-01T04:40:20.277Z
@MasterSparkles Nobody says "unload cargo for a truck" in English, because it is not how people see things when they speak in English. However, some people who do not directly speak English and instead translate from Chinese might give such a sentence. It is simply that English speakers are not used to "doing things for objects", it can actually make perfect sense if someone is to introduce this usage into English and spread it widely. Even if translated into English, it'
s not erroneous grammar, just a different and unconventional mindset. Anyway, the "mindset" is another fun thing in langs:)
busukxuan
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-02-01T05:18:07.880Z
@busykxuan. Right. Such conceptual gaps are rarely so directly reflected in language (at least btw English and Chinese, in my experience) which is what makes this so fascinating.
Master Sparkles
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-01-31T15:36:02.080Z
2015-01-31T15:36:02.080Z
busukxuan
<p>I don't want to make you Chinese people blush, but I have often found that the logic of Chinese is more penetrating than English. In this particular case, in English we simply say 'unload the truck', which is actually ambivalent, albeit easily understood within the context of a given situation. If the truck were the cargo, we could also say the same.</p>

<p>Chinese has 为卡车卸货 for at least 2 reasons. 1 is to passivize, because the truck is not doing anything, 2 is to indicate the fact goods are taken from the truck, not the truck as cargo is unloaded from another vehicle.</p>

<p>To say here '为‘ is 'for' is not correct, in my opinion.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-02-05T03:05:05.843Z
2015-02-05T03:05:05.843Z
Pedroski
<p>实行24 小时工作制。车队利用夜间进行运输，及时<strong>为</strong>卡车卸货，保证在18个小时内完成整个运输过程。</p>

<p>I think it must be ‘把’</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-02-08T03:45:06.723Z
As a native Chinese speaker, actually you could of course replace "为" with "把"、“给”、“帮” here. The sentence would also make sense then!
user2049259
<grammar>
What is the function of in this 为 sentence?
# What is the function of in this 为 sentence?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2015-01-28)

实行24 小时工作制。车队利用夜间进行运输，及时**为**卡车卸货，保证在18个小时内完成整个运输过程。

I think it must be ‘把’

**Tags:** grammar

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: As a native Chinese speaker, actually you could of course replace "为" with "把"、“给”、“帮” here. The sentence would also make sense then!  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2015-01-31. Score: 4

为 means "for", as most people know. In this case, "for" is used as in "unload the cargo for the truck". This usage is slightly less orthodox, but still makes quite some sense if you take it as a personification, treating the truck as if it has a mind, but cannot unload the cargo by itself, so you need to unload the cargo for it. This usage appears because everyone handles objects in their mind differently, and there are people who are used to this sort of personification, as demonstrated when someone consoles an object if the object falls from their hands or a table (mostly kids as adults don't express their thoughts as much. I cannot be sure, but this may be related to empathy). This kind of usage is further proliferated by human interactions in the society, where people tend to be affected and pick up others' language usage patterns.

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: yup. It may conceptually be slightly weird, but again, people aren't robots.;)  
> **username_4**: I agree with this answer but I don't think doing something for some object is personification or metaphorical. You can buy flowers for a room, make cover for a book, unload cargo for a truck. Not being idiomatic or correct in English language does not mean they are illogical to say in any language.  
> **username_3**: @NS.X you actually can't unload cargo "for" a truck in English, it makes no sense to us (the other two usages are correct) because the cargo isn't part of the truck once unloaded, unlike the first two cases. Just out of curiosity- does the usage in the truck case not seem a bit strange for native chinese speakers?  
> **username_4**: @username_3 It's not strange at all - it's the right usage. Colloquial version is 给 (给卡车卸货). If 'unloading cargo for a truck' doesn't make sense in English then I can't think of any _analogy to English_ to help explain this, but it makes perfect sense in Chinese. Doing something for some object does not require the 'thing' to be a part of the object.  
> **username_3**: How interesting! 給 makes more slightly more intuitive sense to me... Thanks for the clarification.  
> **username_2**: @username_3 Nobody says "unload cargo for a truck" in English, because it is not how people see things when they speak in English. However, some people who do not directly speak English and instead translate from Chinese might give such a sentence. It is simply that English speakers are not used to "doing things for objects", it can actually make perfect sense if someone is to introduce this usage into English and spread it widely. Even if translated into English, it' s not erroneous grammar, just a different and unconventional mindset. Anyway, the "mindset" is another fun thing in langs:)  
> **username_3**: @busykxuan. Right. Such conceptual gaps are rarely so directly reflected in language (at least btw English and Chinese, in my experience) which is what makes this so fascinating.  

---

### Answer by username_0 on 2015-02-05. Score: 0

I don't want to make you Chinese people blush, but I have often found that the logic of Chinese is more penetrating than English. In this particular case, in English we simply say 'unload the truck', which is actually ambivalent, albeit easily understood within the context of a given situation. If the truck were the cargo, we could also say the same.

Chinese has 为卡车卸货 for at least 2 reasons. 1 is to passivize, because the truck is not doing anything, 2 is to indicate the fact goods are taken from the truck, not the truck as cargo is unloaded from another vehicle.

To say here '为‘ is 'for' is not correct, in my opinion.


---

