<p>For the second example:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>我沒吃飯已經兩天了。</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This sounds <strong>weird</strong> to a native speaker, although people can understand what you are talking about and the meaning doesn't change.</p>
<p>As mentioned in another answer, the example above could be thought as emphasizing <code>三天</code>. But it still sounds weird, since native speakers will just say something like:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>我已經<strong>兩天</strong>沒吃飯了。</p>
</blockquote>
<p>(Stressed at words in bold to emphasize it.)</p>
<p>So, my conclusion is that <code>已经</code> will change neither the structure nor the meaning of a sentence.</p>
<hr />
<p>Not to confuse you, but the following examples from the comments are also correct.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>他发现自己毕业了<em>没几年</em>。(He found himself just graduated <em>a few years ago</em>.)</p>
<p>他<em>上任没几天</em>，就成了公司里最不得人心的人。(He becomes a unpopular person in the company <em>for just few days of work</em>.)</p>
<p>那张海报贴上去<em>没几个小时就让人给偷走</em>了。(The poster was posted, <em>but got stolen after a few hours</em>.)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The grammar order seems to violate the rules, but I consider the parts in italic are adverbs or clauses (which is not consider as using that rule). The reason is that you can delete the italic parts, and having no effect to the sentence structure.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-05-06T18:33:22.463Z
2017-08-24T01:08:56.993Z
2020-06-17T09:50:11.587Z
CFSO6459
<pre><code>我沒吃飯已經兩天了。- I haven't been eating for 2 days.  
我已經兩天沒吃飯了。- I for 2 days haven't been eating.  
</code></pre>

<p>In terms of grammar they're both <em>not wrong</em>, but you can already tell it's weird for the second line in English.  Same goes for Chinese for the first line.</p>

<p>For the origin question -   </p>

<pre><code>我三天沒來上課了 = I didn't come to class for three days.  
我已經三天沒來上課了 = I haven't come to class for three days.
</code></pre>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-03-27T14:33:58.347Z
2018-03-27T14:33:58.347Z
Alex
<p>My professor teaches that duration of non action should come before the verb. For instance:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>我三天沒來上課了。</p>
</blockquote>
<p>On the other hand, native speakers have said both these sentences containing 已經 are correct：</p>
<blockquote>
<p>我沒吃飯已經兩天了。</p>
<p>我已經兩天沒吃飯了。</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Is there a difference of meaning between the last two? Or else why can 已經 render the rule my professor teaches nought? Or is the rule wrong?</p>
<p>EDIT: I asked the same question inside my weixin group - there sentence one was labelled 2 and vice versa! Opinions diverged greatly. Some of the longer comments are the following. Unfortunately, I don't understand them completely, because they are in Chinese:</p>
<p>Commentator A:
结果一样是三天无饭，但两句意思隐藏了无饭的选择关系有主动与被动，不知陆迪兄弟能否get 到.</p>
<p>Commentator B:
第一个含义我很饿。第二个含义我可能吃了其它食物或我还可以继续不吃饭。</p>
<p>EDIT 2:
Two native speakers claimed that one of them emphasised time, the other not eating. But they disagree as to which is which.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-05-06T16:26:01.447Z
to test teacher's assertion enter e.g. 没  年/天/小时 into jukuu, displayed results seem to confirm it, except perhaps for the following 他没上过几天学。 He had hardly any schooling. if 已經 is added in front, it seems jukuu just ignores it, so it seems impossible to test whether  已經 makes any difference   
  There also are results with 没 in front of duration and duration starting with 几 like 他发现自己毕业了没几年。。。He discovered that while it had not been many years since he graduated...他上任没几天,就成了公司里最不得人心的人。Within a few days of taking office he...那张海报贴上去没几个小时就让人给偷走了 The poster only stayed up a few hours,.
user6065
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-05-06T16:26:16.050Z
.But this may be beside the point and anyhow does not refer to non-action, only to shortness.
user6065
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-05-07T00:15:20.803Z
我沒吃飯已經兩天了 violates the general rule that adverbs occur before verbs (or adjectives), so if e. g. 已经三天了 (ungrammatical w/o verb or adjective between 已经 and duration) is entered into jukuu the displayed examples will all have a verb or adjective in between (w or w/o negation) 
Of course, omission being a basic feature of Chinese, it may be asked whether 已经三天了 by itself may not be a valid phrase, e.g. as a confirming answer,
or if it is separated from the preceding by a suitable punctuation mark added as an afterthought it may be admissible.
user6065
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-05-07T11:08:31.567Z
@user6065 good test! Answers below, though, seem to reflect the same division apparent among my native speaker friends. Some say 沒⋯（已經）三天了 is fine. Some say it sounds weird :(
Ludi
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-05-07T11:56:51.200Z
@user6065 some native speakers claim differences in meaning. Please see my edit!
Ludi
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-05-10T21:51:45.857Z
I wouldn't say the placement after the predicate is wrong, but it has a distinctly colloquial feel to it, with a definite increase of emphasis on the duration, like the italics on "I haven't eaten *for two whole days*."
Brian Tung
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-08-24T02:19:56.030Z
我沒吃飯已經兩天了 indicates a status being persistent, it doesn't care about reasons of this result, even if 我想吃饭 or not, sometimes it implies that the status should be stopped (by myself or someone, 我不一定想吃饭，或我吃不下); while 我已經兩天沒吃飯了 implies that 我已经很饿了and 我想吃饭 (something prevents me)。
Daniel Yang
<grammar>
Does this placement of 已經 alter the meaning?
# Does this placement of 已經 alter the meaning?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2017-05-06)

My professor teaches that duration of non action should come before the verb. For instance:

> 我三天沒來上課了。

On the other hand, native speakers have said both these sentences containing 已經 are correct：

> 我沒吃飯已經兩天了。
>
> 我已經兩天沒吃飯了。

Is there a difference of meaning between the last two? Or else why can 已經 render the rule my professor teaches nought? Or is the rule wrong?

EDIT: I asked the same question inside my weixin group - there sentence one was labelled 2 and vice versa! Opinions diverged greatly. Some of the longer comments are the following. Unfortunately, I don't understand them completely, because they are in Chinese:

Commentator A:
结果一样是三天无饭，但两句意思隐藏了无饭的选择关系有主动与被动，不知陆迪兄弟能否get 到.

Commentator B:
第一个含义我很饿。第二个含义我可能吃了其它食物或我还可以继续不吃饭。

EDIT 2:
Two native speakers claimed that one of them emphasised time, the other not eating. But they disagree as to which is which.

**Tags:** grammar

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: to test teacher's assertion enter e.g. 没  年/天/小时 into jukuu, displayed results seem to confirm it, except perhaps for the following 他没上过几天学。 He had hardly any schooling. if 已經 is added in front, it seems jukuu just ignores it, so it seems impossible to test whether  已經 makes any difference      There also are results with 没 in front of duration and duration starting with 几 like 他发现自己毕业了没几年。。。He discovered that while it had not been many years since he graduated...他上任没几天,就成了公司里最不得人心的人。Within a few days of taking office he...那张海报贴上去没几个小时就让人给偷走了 The poster only stayed up a few hours,.  
> **username_1**: .But this may be beside the point and anyhow does not refer to non-action, only to shortness.  
> **username_1**: 我沒吃飯已經兩天了 violates the general rule that adverbs occur before verbs (or adjectives), so if e. g. 已经三天了 (ungrammatical w/o verb or adjective between 已经 and duration) is entered into jukuu the displayed examples will all have a verb or adjective in between (w or w/o negation)  Of course, omission being a basic feature of Chinese, it may be asked whether 已经三天了 by itself may not be a valid phrase, e.g. as a confirming answer, or if it is separated from the preceding by a suitable punctuation mark added as an afterthought it may be admissible.  
> **username_0**: @username_1 good test! Answers below, though, seem to reflect the same division apparent among my native speaker friends. Some say 沒⋯（已經）三天了 is fine. Some say it sounds weird :(  
> **username_0**: @username_1 some native speakers claim differences in meaning. Please see my edit!  
> **username_2**: I wouldn't say the placement after the predicate is wrong, but it has a distinctly colloquial feel to it, with a definite increase of emphasis on the duration, like the italics on "I haven't eaten *for two whole days*."  
> **username_3**: 我沒吃飯已經兩天了 indicates a status being persistent, it doesn't care about reasons of this result, even if 我想吃饭 or not, sometimes it implies that the status should be stopped (by myself or someone, 我不一定想吃饭，或我吃不下); while 我已經兩天沒吃飯了 implies that 我已经很饿了and 我想吃饭 (something prevents me)。  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_4 on 2017-05-06. Score: 1

For the second example:

> 我沒吃飯已經兩天了。

This sounds **weird** to a native speaker, although people can understand what you are talking about and the meaning doesn't change.

As mentioned in another answer, the example above could be thought as emphasizing `三天`. But it still sounds weird, since native speakers will just say something like:

> 我已經**兩天**沒吃飯了。

(Stressed at words in bold to emphasize it.)

So, my conclusion is that `已经` will change neither the structure nor the meaning of a sentence.

---

Not to confuse you, but the following examples from the comments are also correct.

> 他发现自己毕业了*没几年*。(He found himself just graduated *a few years ago*.)
>
> 他*上任没几天*，就成了公司里最不得人心的人。(He becomes a unpopular person in the company *for just few days of work*.)
>
> 那张海报贴上去*没几个小时就让人给偷走*了。(The poster was posted, *but got stolen after a few hours*.)

The grammar order seems to violate the rules, but I consider the parts in italic are adverbs or clauses (which is not consider as using that rule). The reason is that you can delete the italic parts, and having no effect to the sentence structure.


---

### Answer by username_5 on 2018-03-27. Score: 0

```
我沒吃飯已經兩天了。- I haven't been eating for 2 days.  
我已經兩天沒吃飯了。- I for 2 days haven't been eating.  

```

In terms of grammar they're both *not wrong*, but you can already tell it's weird for the second line in English. Same goes for Chinese for the first line.

For the origin question -

```
我三天沒來上課了 = I didn't come to class for three days.  
我已經三天沒來上課了 = I haven't come to class for three days.

```


---

