<blockquote>
  <p>Question: Is this sentence wrong? Is 可以 an exception to the rule order? Or is it because it is a compound sentence (with two verbs) and the time word makes reference to the second verb 去?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>明天天气好 and 我们可以明天去 are two separate clauses (relative clause and main clause)</p>

<p>(如果)明天天气好 is the relative clause, 我们可以明天去 is the main clause</p>

<p>我们可以明天去 or 明天我们可以去  are both correct</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-06-06T01:31:33.510Z
So in the main clause of a relative-main sentence construction, you don't have to follow the rule order of subject, time when, adverb, location, instrument etc?
MuchAppreciated25
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-06-06T01:48:41.827Z
No, the main clause follows the rule like an independent sentence. [明天我们可以去] --> [ (Time) + Subj + 可以 + Verb] ; [我们可以明天去] --> [ Sub +  可以 + (Time) + Verb] . Both examples have the subject before 可以, but time can be placed before or after the subject
Tang Ho
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-06-06T09:52:28.917Z
@TangHo So 可以 is not considered a verb? Then time can be placed in three possible positions: before the subject, between Subj and 可以 or between 可以 and the verb?
Puco4
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-06-06T10:02:22.703Z
可以 (can/ able to) can be an auxiliary verb e.g. 可以去 (able to go). It must be placed before a verb. 1. Time can be placed before an auxiliary verb and verb e.g. 明天可以去; 2. Time can be placed between an auxiliary and verb  e.g. 可以明天去
Tang Ho
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-06-06T10:08:46.120Z
As for the relationship between the subject and time, Time can be placed before or after the subject e.g. 我们明天去; 明天我们去. Since 可以 can be placed before or between auxiliary verb and verb, you can place 可以 the following way, as long as it is after the subject and before a verb:  e.g. 我们明天(可以)去 ; 我们 (可以)明天去
Tang Ho
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-06-06T10:15:59.780Z
But  there is a slight different between the two sentences. 我们明天可以去 means 'we can go when tomorrow comes (cannot go now) ; 我们可以明天去 means 'we can wait until tomorrow to go (no need to go now)
Tang Ho
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-06-06T10:55:40.323Z
@TangHo Thank you for your answers! Do you know some reference of this rule about the position of time when there are auxiliary verbs? I'm trying to find it but I'm not able...
Puco4
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-06-05T22:24:01.750Z
2020-06-05T22:24:01.750Z
Tang Ho
<p>In <a href="https://resources.allsetlearning.com/chinese/grammar/Time_words_and_word_order" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this site</a> they say time words can only appear in two possible positions in a sentence, either before or after the subject:</p>

<ol>
<li><code>Time + Subj. + Verb + Obj.</code></li>
<li><code>Subj. + Time + Verb + Obj.</code></li>
</ol>

<p>But I came across the following sentence:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>明天天气好，我们<strong>可以明天</strong>去.</p>
  
  <p>Mínɡtiān tiānqì hǎo, wǒmen kěyǐ mínɡtiān qù.</p>
  
  <p>The weather is good tomorrow, we can go tomorrow.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Where the time word 明天 is after 可以. According to the previous rules, I thought it should be before 可以.</p>

<p><strong>Question:</strong> Is this sentence wrong? Is 可以 an exception to the rule order? Or is it because it is a compound sentence (with two verbs) and the time word makes reference to the second verb 去?</p>

<grammar><usage><sentence-structure><word-order>
可以 altering time words order?
# 可以 altering time words order?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2020-06-05)

In [this site](https://resources.allsetlearning.com/chinese/grammar/Time_words_and_word_order) they say time words can only appear in two possible positions in a sentence, either before or after the subject:

1. `Time + Subj. + Verb + Obj.`
2. `Subj. + Time + Verb + Obj.`

But I came across the following sentence:

> 明天天气好，我们**可以明天**去.
>
> Mínɡtiān tiānqì hǎo, wǒmen kěyǐ mínɡtiān qù.
>
> The weather is good tomorrow, we can go tomorrow.

Where the time word 明天 is after 可以. According to the previous rules, I thought it should be before 可以.

**Question:** Is this sentence wrong? Is 可以 an exception to the rule order? Or is it because it is a compound sentence (with two verbs) and the time word makes reference to the second verb 去?

**Tags:** grammar, usage, sentence-structure, word-order


---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2020-06-05. Score: 0 | Accepted answer

> Question: Is this sentence wrong? Is 可以 an exception to the rule order? Or is it because it is a compound sentence (with two verbs) and the time word makes reference to the second verb 去?

明天天气好 and 我们可以明天去 are two separate clauses (relative clause and main clause)

(如果)明天天气好 is the relative clause, 我们可以明天去 is the main clause

我们可以明天去 or 明天我们可以去 are both correct

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: So in the main clause of a relative-main sentence construction, you don't have to follow the rule order of subject, time when, adverb, location, instrument etc?  
> **username_1**: No, the main clause follows the rule like an independent sentence. [明天我们可以去] --> [ (Time) + Subj + 可以 + Verb] ; [我们可以明天去] --> [ Sub +  可以 + (Time) + Verb] . Both examples have the subject before 可以, but time can be placed before or after the subject  
> **username_0**: @username_1 So 可以 is not considered a verb? Then time can be placed in three possible positions: before the subject, between Subj and 可以 or between 可以 and the verb?  
> **username_1**: 可以 (can/ able to) can be an auxiliary verb e.g. 可以去 (able to go). It must be placed before a verb. 1. Time can be placed before an auxiliary verb and verb e.g. 明天可以去; 2. Time can be placed between an auxiliary and verb  e.g. 可以明天去  
> **username_1**: As for the relationship between the subject and time, Time can be placed before or after the subject e.g. 我们明天去; 明天我们去. Since 可以 can be placed before or between auxiliary verb and verb, you can place 可以 the following way, as long as it is after the subject and before a verb:  e.g. 我们明天(可以)去 ; 我们 (可以)明天去  
> **username_1**: But  there is a slight different between the two sentences. 我们明天可以去 means 'we can go when tomorrow comes (cannot go now) ; 我们可以明天去 means 'we can wait until tomorrow to go (no need to go now)  
> **username_0**: @username_1 Thank you for your answers! Do you know some reference of this rule about the position of time when there are auxiliary verbs? I'm trying to find it but I'm not able...  

---

