<p>In [verb + 的 + verb] structure, 的 is functioning as a pronoun</p>
<p>逃(<strong>的</strong>)逃 = (<strong>The ones who</strong>) run, run</p>
<p>降(<strong>的</strong>)降 =  (<strong>The ones who</strong>) surrender, surrender</p>
<blockquote>
<p>When we don't know who are running, we use a pronoun to refer them</p>
<p>'逃的' (the one who run) is a 'noun phrase' (subject) ; the second '逃' is the verb</p>
<p><em>You can also use 有些(some) as the pronoun to refer them. For example: &quot;<strong>有些</strong>逃跑, <strong>有些</strong>投降&quot; (<strong>some</strong> run, <strong>some</strong> surrender)</em></p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-10-30T14:45:32.933Z
Thanks for reply, I marked the other one as correct though because I feel it delivered the most important piece of explanation (do things without any constrains or scruple)
Danio
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-10-31T07:58:11.417Z
逃(的)逃 = (The one(s) who want to) run run(s), 降(的)降 = (The one(s) who want to) surrender surrender(s).
xenophōn
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-10-31T08:08:11.370Z
@賈可 Jacky No, you are describing "能/想逃的都逃了,願/肯降的都降了" .  逃(的)逃; 降(的)降 simply describe what 'parts (individual soldiers)' of a 'whole (a defeated army)' are doing
Tang Ho
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-10-31T08:20:37.120Z
@Danio "(军队 the whole arny)也多不愿为他送命，于是(1.逃的逃)、(2.降的降)，(3.起义的起义)" ; 1,2 and 3 simply describe what the individual soldiers in that army are doing. The manner of how they carry out their action is irrelevant. Look at the following example: "暑假到了, 同學們1.打工的打工，2.旅遊的旅遊, 3.上補習班的上補習班." In this example (同學們) is the whole class, while 1, 2 and 3. simply describe what individual classmates are doing
Tang Ho
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-10-31T12:54:28.180Z
I guess you're right, given that different context, your answer seems more general
Danio
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-10-31T14:14:07.503Z
This is clearly not the way a native speaker would understand the phrase.
dan
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-10-31T14:29:42.817Z
@dan  just read the second example in my answer, you thought this [verb + 的 + verb] structure describes a 'disordered situation' because the first example mentioned a 'demoralized army'  but in other context, it just simply stating what 'different members' of 'a whole group' are doing. Do you think all the classmates doing their things in a chaos?
Tang Ho
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-10-31T14:37:52.977Z
And you have down voted me every times my answer is different from yours, have you ever consider 'maybe the other guy is right and I was wrong?' I never down vote another answer if I have also provided my own answer. I would let the readers to decide which answer is the most reasonable.
Tang Ho
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-10-31T22:46:49.693Z
@TangHo If a person says something like that 玩的玩，逃的逃，... there is usually a reason behind it. In the Op's case, it's clear that the author want to give a reason why 朝歌很快就被攻克. He wants readers to know how disordered or chaotic it looks like by 于是逃的逃、降的降，起义的起义.
dan
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-10-31T22:56:37.697Z
Your example "暑假到了, 同學們1.打工的打工，2.旅遊的旅遊, 3.上補習班的上補習班." isn't a good one. It's because usually people use this structure with emotions, otherwise they will say 有的打工，有的旅游，有的上补习班。if you say 1.打工的打工，2.旅遊的旅遊, 3.上補習班的上補習班, basically you want to give a reason why something else takes place. For example, 暑假到了, 同學們打工的打工，旅遊的旅遊, 上補習班的上補習班, 就是没有人回家看父母。Here the writer thinks 回家看父母 is also important beyond other things.
dan
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-10-31T23:05:18.717Z
@dan But the question is "What is the meaning of this form? " This form can be applied to all examples, with different context, the meaning would also slightly different. Therefore, we know the structure itself doesn't express the meaning you perceived (disorderly in the OP's example came from the cause phrase).  As for my second example, I just didn't make it be too detailed. the last sentence you suggested is just one of the millions possibilities
Tang Ho
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-10-31T23:08:28.233Z
Your another example  is the same thing. "婚宴酒席上賓客們玩的玩，闹的闹" sounds like a incomplete statement. People might wonder why you say "婚宴酒席上賓客們玩的玩，闹的闹"? Usually this expression should follow with some additional context, e.g."婚宴酒席上賓客們玩的玩，闹的闹, 就是没有人给新郎新娘送祝福。" All in all, this structure is used when the speaker feels annoyed, unreasonable, etc, so he used it to describe the situation and then states its impact. Otherwise, he/she would simply use the structure like 有的...有的..., 有些...有些..., or alike.
dan
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-10-31T23:14:13.760Z
@TangHo by the way, I seldom downvote. I only downvote when the answer is clearly wrong to me. If it's just small, i won't go downvote.
dan
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-10-31T23:40:39.397Z
@TangHo The main difference of this form from others is "**it's emotional**". If one doesn't have certain feelings, he wouldn't have used it. He would use other forms instead. Although you can still use it that way if you like, it's not accurate.
dan
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-11-01T00:32:26.983Z
"it's emotional".? You still don't get it, It would be emotional if the context suggests it. It wouldn't be  emotional  if the context isn't. Again-- my example. "暑假到了, 同學們打工的打工, 旅遊的旅遊, 上補習班的上補習班, 我就天天到圖書館自修"。" There's no emotional element in this example. Just stating the fact
Tang Ho
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-11-01T00:41:25.437Z
You cannot honestly say this example is not a proper paragraph.
Tang Ho
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-11-01T22:44:10.410Z
@TangHo Well, I've just said all i want to express. That's not the way the structure is normally used. If you insist, then ...
dan
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-10-29T16:20:29.060Z
2018-10-29T16:41:54.263Z
2020-06-17T09:50:11.587Z
Tang Ho
<p>I think  the structure {verb + 的 + verb} connotes that people <strong><em>do things without any constrains or scruple</em></strong>. It describes <strong><em>a disordered situation.</em></strong></p>

<p>Compared to</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>老师不在的时候，同学们玩的玩，闹的闹。// completely disordered there.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>玩的玩 implied that <strong><em>if one wants to play, they just play</em></strong> (without any constrains or scruple).</p>

<p>In your sentence, 因为商纣王已失尽人心, therefore people just did whatever they thought right to them,  逃的逃、降的降，起义的起义(fled if one felt like flee, surrender if one felt like surrender, ...) The army was disordered or uncontrolled.</p>

<p>Stretch a bit: 逃的逃 -> 想逃的人逃了</p>

<p>P.S. the structure {verb + 的 + verb} is usually used to express a feeling and the feeling can be negative ones such as annoyed, sad, angry, etc or positive ones such as happy, joy, exciting, etc. </p>

<p>Those examples above are negative. Here is a positive one: </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>操场上，同学们跳绳的跳绳，做操的做操，踢毽子的踢毽子，好开心啊！</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Basically, the structure {verb + 的 + verb} is used to describe a situation and how you feel that situation. If you want to express a generic situation, you can just use other structure like 有的...有的, 有些...有些, etc.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-10-30T14:33:46.357Z
So the general idea of this sentence could be translated as such: because the emperors authority collapsed, the armies lost discipline and each of them did as they please rather than coordinate in defense. Does it make sense?
Danio
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-10-30T14:37:20.277Z
@Danio That's right, although it's not a word for word translation.
dan
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-10-31T14:54:17.130Z
玩的玩，闹的闹 doesn't describe 'a completely disordered scene' here, you thought so, because you have  '老师不在的时候'  (imply no authority maintaining order)  in the sentence,  If the sentence is "婚宴酒席上賓客們玩的玩，闹的闹" you wouldn't describe it as 'disordered' because having fun in a wedding banquet is expected behaviour
Tang Ho
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-10-30T13:58:12.297Z
2018-11-01T23:27:53.473Z
2018-11-01T23:27:53.473Z
dan
<blockquote>
  <p>逃的逃，降的降，起义的起义。</p>
</blockquote>

<p>It is actually an elliptical sentence.</p>

<p>The complete sentence is:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>逃跑的人逃跑，投降的人投降，起义的人起义。</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Thus, it can be literally translated to:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Escapers escape, surrenderers surrender, and revolters revolt.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Or more grammatically in English:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>People who escape escape, people who surrender surrender, and people who revolt revolt.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>It implies that many people escape, surrender, and revolt.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-11-06T19:28:10.763Z
2018-11-06T19:28:10.763Z
Victor
<p>What is the meaning of this form? </p>

<p>Example:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>因为商纣王已失尽人心，军队也多不愿为他送命，于是逃的逃、降的降，起义的起义，朝歌很快就被攻克。纣王自杀，商朝就此灭亡。</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I found many articles about simple reduplication of verbs in Chinese, like verb + verb or verb + 一 + verb (看看，看一看） but this one looks different (the way it's used).</p>

<grammar>
Grammar: verb + 的 + verb
# Grammar: verb + 的 + verb

(Asked by: username_0 on 2018-10-29)

What is the meaning of this form?

Example:

> 因为商纣王已失尽人心，军队也多不愿为他送命，于是逃的逃、降的降，起义的起义，朝歌很快就被攻克。纣王自杀，商朝就此灭亡。

I found many articles about simple reduplication of verbs in Chinese, like verb + verb or verb + 一 + verb (看看，看一看） but this one looks different (the way it's used).

**Tags:** grammar


---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2018-10-29. Score: 3 | Accepted answer

In [verb + 的 + verb] structure, 的 is functioning as a pronoun

逃(**的**)逃 = (**The ones who**) run, run

降(**的**)降 = (**The ones who**) surrender, surrender

> When we don't know who are running, we use a pronoun to refer them
>
> '逃的' (the one who run) is a 'noun phrase' (subject) ; the second '逃' is the verb
>
> *You can also use 有些(some) as the pronoun to refer them. For example: "**有些**逃跑, **有些**投降" (**some** run, **some** surrender)*

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Thanks for reply, I marked the other one as correct though because I feel it delivered the most important piece of explanation (do things without any constrains or scruple)  
> **username_2**: 逃(的)逃 = (The one(s) who want to) run run(s), 降(的)降 = (The one(s) who want to) surrender surrender(s).  
> **username_1**: @賈可 Jacky No, you are describing "能/想逃的都逃了,願/肯降的都降了" .  逃(的)逃; 降(的)降 simply describe what 'parts (individual soldiers)' of a 'whole (a defeated army)' are doing  
> **username_1**: @username_0 "(军队 the whole arny)也多不愿为他送命，于是(1.逃的逃)、(2.降的降)，(3.起义的起义)" ; 1,2 and 3 simply describe what the individual soldiers in that army are doing. The manner of how they carry out their action is irrelevant. Look at the following example: "暑假到了, 同學們1.打工的打工，2.旅遊的旅遊, 3.上補習班的上補習班." In this example (同學們) is the whole class, while 1, 2 and 3. simply describe what individual classmates are doing  
> **username_0**: I guess you're right, given that different context, your answer seems more general  
> **username_3**: This is clearly not the way a native speaker would understand the phrase.  
> **username_1**: @username_3  just read the second example in my answer, you thought this [verb + 的 + verb] structure describes a 'disordered situation' because the first example mentioned a 'demoralized army'  but in other context, it just simply stating what 'different members' of 'a whole group' are doing. Do you think all the classmates doing their things in a chaos?  
> **username_1**: And you have down voted me every times my answer is different from yours, have you ever consider 'maybe the other guy is right and I was wrong?' I never down vote another answer if I have also provided my own answer. I would let the readers to decide which answer is the most reasonable.  
> **username_3**: @username_1 If a person says something like that 玩的玩，逃的逃，... there is usually a reason behind it. In the Op's case, it's clear that the author want to give a reason why 朝歌很快就被攻克. He wants readers to know how disordered or chaotic it looks like by 于是逃的逃、降的降，起义的起义.  
> **username_3**: Your example "暑假到了, 同學們1.打工的打工，2.旅遊的旅遊, 3.上補習班的上補習班." isn't a good one. It's because usually people use this structure with emotions, otherwise they will say 有的打工，有的旅游，有的上补习班。if you say 1.打工的打工，2.旅遊的旅遊, 3.上補習班的上補習班, basically you want to give a reason why something else takes place. For example, 暑假到了, 同學們打工的打工，旅遊的旅遊, 上補習班的上補習班, 就是没有人回家看父母。Here the writer thinks 回家看父母 is also important beyond other things.  
> **username_1**: @username_3 But the question is "What is the meaning of this form? " This form can be applied to all examples, with different context, the meaning would also slightly different. Therefore, we know the structure itself doesn't express the meaning you perceived (disorderly in the OP's example came from the cause phrase).  As for my second example, I just didn't make it be too detailed. the last sentence you suggested is just one of the millions possibilities  
> **username_3**: Your another example  is the same thing. "婚宴酒席上賓客們玩的玩，闹的闹" sounds like a incomplete statement. People might wonder why you say "婚宴酒席上賓客們玩的玩，闹的闹"? Usually this expression should follow with some additional context, e.g."婚宴酒席上賓客們玩的玩，闹的闹, 就是没有人给新郎新娘送祝福。" All in all, this structure is used when the speaker feels annoyed, unreasonable, etc, so he used it to describe the situation and then states its impact. Otherwise, he/she would simply use the structure like 有的...有的..., 有些...有些..., or alike.  
> **username_3**: @username_1 by the way, I seldom downvote. I only downvote when the answer is clearly wrong to me. If it's just small, i won't go downvote.  
> **username_3**: @username_1 The main difference of this form from others is "**it's emotional**". If one doesn't have certain feelings, he wouldn't have used it. He would use other forms instead. Although you can still use it that way if you like, it's not accurate.  
> **username_1**: "it's emotional".? You still don't get it, It would be emotional if the context suggests it. It wouldn't be  emotional  if the context isn't. Again-- my example. "暑假到了, 同學們打工的打工, 旅遊的旅遊, 上補習班的上補習班, 我就天天到圖書館自修"。" There's no emotional element in this example. Just stating the fact  
> **username_1**: You cannot honestly say this example is not a proper paragraph.  
> **username_3**: @username_1 Well, I've just said all i want to express. That's not the way the structure is normally used. If you insist, then ...  

---

### Answer by username_3 on 2018-10-30. Score: 4

I think the structure {verb + 的 + verb} connotes that people ***do things without any constrains or scruple***. It describes ***a disordered situation.***

Compared to

> 老师不在的时候，同学们玩的玩，闹的闹。// completely disordered there.

玩的玩 implied that ***if one wants to play, they just play*** (without any constrains or scruple).

In your sentence, 因为商纣王已失尽人心, therefore people just did whatever they thought right to them, 逃的逃、降的降，起义的起义(fled if one felt like flee, surrender if one felt like surrender, ...) The army was disordered or uncontrolled.

Stretch a bit: 逃的逃 -> 想逃的人逃了

P.S. the structure {verb + 的 + verb} is usually used to express a feeling and the feeling can be negative ones such as annoyed, sad, angry, etc or positive ones such as happy, joy, exciting, etc.

Those examples above are negative. Here is a positive one:

> 操场上，同学们跳绳的跳绳，做操的做操，踢毽子的踢毽子，好开心啊！

Basically, the structure {verb + 的 + verb} is used to describe a situation and how you feel that situation. If you want to express a generic situation, you can just use other structure like 有的...有的, 有些...有些, etc.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: So the general idea of this sentence could be translated as such: because the emperors authority collapsed, the armies lost discipline and each of them did as they please rather than coordinate in defense. Does it make sense?  
> **username_3**: @username_0 That's right, although it's not a word for word translation.  
> **username_1**: 玩的玩，闹的闹 doesn't describe 'a completely disordered scene' here, you thought so, because you have  '老师不在的时候'  (imply no authority maintaining order)  in the sentence,  If the sentence is "婚宴酒席上賓客們玩的玩，闹的闹" you wouldn't describe it as 'disordered' because having fun in a wedding banquet is expected behaviour  

---

### Answer by username_4 on 2018-11-06. Score: 2

> 逃的逃，降的降，起义的起义。

It is actually an elliptical sentence.

The complete sentence is:

> 逃跑的人逃跑，投降的人投降，起义的人起义。

Thus, it can be literally translated to:

> Escapers escape, surrenderers surrender, and revolters revolt.

Or more grammatically in English:

> People who escape escape, people who surrender surrender, and people who revolt revolt.

It implies that many people escape, surrender, and revolt.


---

