<blockquote>
  <p>Is 靠 structure "A (pronoun/noun) 靠 B (pronoun/noun) do something"? </p>
</blockquote>

<p>The thing  missing is 'to achieve something'</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"A (pronoun/noun) 靠 B (pronoun/noun) to do something to achieve something" </p>
</blockquote>

<ul>
<li><p>他们全家的生活靠父亲一个人工作 = the whole family's living depend on the father working alone </p></li>
<li><p>他们全家的生活靠父亲一个人工作(來維持) = the whole family's living depend on the father working alone (to maintain) </p></li>
</ul>

<p>(<em>"to maintain living, the whole family depend on the father to work alone</em>".  Not "生活(subject) 靠 父亲一个人工")</p>

<ul>
<li><p>他们的收入靠经营宾馆 = their income depend on running an inn</p></li>
<li><p>他们的收入靠经营宾馆(而來) = their income depend on running an inn (to obtain) </p></li>
</ul>

<p>(<em>to obtain income, they depend on running an inn</em> . Not 收入(subject) 靠 经营宾馆)</p>

<p>Note:</p>

<p>If 靠 means 'solely depend on' you should use the full term 全靠 instead of just 靠</p>

<ul>
<li><p>他们全家的生活全靠父亲一个人工作來維持 = the whole family's living solely depend on the father working alone to maintain </p></li>
<li><p>他们的收入全靠经营宾馆而來 = their income sole depend on running an inn to obtain </p></li>
</ul>

<p>A simpler example</p>

<p>汽車依靠汽油 (car depend on gas)</p>

<p>汽車依靠汽油來運行 (car depend on gas to run)</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-25T03:24:17.193Z
So, the listener still understands what I mean but my sentences are not completed because they lack of "purpose", right?
Jenny
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-25T03:25:11.303Z
purpose is implied, see my edition at the bottom. 汽車依靠汽油 imply 汽車依靠汽油來運行
Tang Ho
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-26T07:05:32.727Z
@Jenny I think the idea is that in speech, it's often ok to leave out the last part of the sentence because the listener can easily fill in the missing part; but in writing, it's best to flesh out the idea fully to maintain the grammatical integrity of the sentence (unless  you are quoting the speech of a character in your writing of course)
Marko
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-26T07:40:18.537Z
You're right! Many Chinese people tell me that.
Jenny
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-25T03:04:30.460Z
2020-05-25T03:27:47.350Z
2020-05-25T03:27:47.350Z
Tang Ho
<pre><code>他们全家靠父亲一个人工作生活。Their family get by on their dad's salary.
他们靠经营宾馆发了财。They make fortune by hotel business.
</code></pre>

<p>There are my questions</p>

<p>(1) Is 靠 structure "A (pronoun/noun) 靠 B (pronoun/noun) do something"? </p>

<p>(2) Can I say： </p>

<p>他们全家的生活靠父亲一个人工作。</p>

<p>他们收入靠经营宾馆。</p>

<p>(3) Are there any special notices involving 靠 structure?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-25T02:47:49.670Z
It seems that you got it right. All your sentences are correct.
dan
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-25T02:51:41.143Z
so are there any special notices?
Jenny
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-25T03:47:46.563Z
他们全家靠父亲一个人工作生活。 is wrong.  I missed it.
dan
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-25T03:48:47.230Z
Can you explain why it is wrong?
Jenny
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-25T03:54:40.783Z
他们全家靠父亲一个人工作生活 should be 他们全家靠父亲一个人工作(來維持)生活
Tang Ho
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-25T03:58:17.113Z
工作生活 = work live; 工作(來維持)生活 = work to maintain live
Tang Ho
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-25T04:19:53.150Z
他们全家靠父亲一个人工作生活 implies that "Their family depend on their dad working to survive/to get by", but it should be made more completed by adding 來維持, right?
Jenny
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-25T04:25:17.057Z
@Jenny 他们全家靠父亲一个人工作来生活 is a complete version. 他们全家靠父亲一个人工作生活 might be ok colloquially, especially when we take it as a shorthand of 他们全家靠父亲一个人工作来生活.  But grammatically I suggest the version with 来.
dan
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-25T04:39:56.630Z
Thanks Dan and Tang Ho!
Jenny
<grammar><sentence-structure>
Is 靠 structure "A 靠 B do something"?
# Is 靠 structure "A 靠 B do something"?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2020-05-25)

```
他们全家靠父亲一个人工作生活。Their family get by on their dad's salary.
他们靠经营宾馆发了财。They make fortune by hotel business.

```

There are my questions

(1) Is 靠 structure "A (pronoun/noun) 靠 B (pronoun/noun) do something"?

(2) Can I say：

他们全家的生活靠父亲一个人工作。

他们收入靠经营宾馆。

(3) Are there any special notices involving 靠 structure?

**Tags:** grammar, sentence-structure

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: It seems that you got it right. All your sentences are correct.  
> **username_0**: so are there any special notices?  
> **username_1**: 他们全家靠父亲一个人工作生活。 is wrong.  I missed it.  
> **username_0**: Can you explain why it is wrong?  
> **username_2**: 他们全家靠父亲一个人工作生活 should be 他们全家靠父亲一个人工作(來維持)生活  
> **username_2**: 工作生活 = work live; 工作(來維持)生活 = work to maintain live  
> **username_0**: 他们全家靠父亲一个人工作生活 implies that "Their family depend on their dad working to survive/to get by", but it should be made more completed by adding 來維持, right?  
> **username_1**: @username_0 他们全家靠父亲一个人工作来生活 is a complete version. 他们全家靠父亲一个人工作生活 might be ok colloquially, especially when we take it as a shorthand of 他们全家靠父亲一个人工作来生活.  But grammatically I suggest the version with 来.  
> **username_0**: Thanks Dan and username_2 Ho!  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2020-05-25. Score: 2 | Accepted answer

> Is 靠 structure "A (pronoun/noun) 靠 B (pronoun/noun) do something"?

The thing missing is 'to achieve something'

> "A (pronoun/noun) 靠 B (pronoun/noun) to do something to achieve something"

* 他们全家的生活靠父亲一个人工作 = the whole family's living depend on the father working alone
* 他们全家的生活靠父亲一个人工作(來維持) = the whole family's living depend on the father working alone (to maintain)

(*"to maintain living, the whole family depend on the father to work alone*". Not "生活(subject) 靠 父亲一个人工")

* 他们的收入靠经营宾馆 = their income depend on running an inn
* 他们的收入靠经营宾馆(而來) = their income depend on running an inn (to obtain)

(*to obtain income, they depend on running an inn* . Not 收入(subject) 靠 经营宾馆)

Note:

If 靠 means 'solely depend on' you should use the full term 全靠 instead of just 靠

* 他们全家的生活全靠父亲一个人工作來維持 = the whole family's living solely depend on the father working alone to maintain
* 他们的收入全靠经营宾馆而來 = their income sole depend on running an inn to obtain

A simpler example

汽車依靠汽油 (car depend on gas)

汽車依靠汽油來運行 (car depend on gas to run)

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: So, the listener still understands what I mean but my sentences are not completed because they lack of "purpose", right?  
> **username_2**: purpose is implied, see my edition at the bottom. 汽車依靠汽油 imply 汽車依靠汽油來運行  
> **username_3**: @username_0 I think the idea is that in speech, it's often ok to leave out the last part of the sentence because the listener can easily fill in the missing part; but in writing, it's best to flesh out the idea fully to maintain the grammatical integrity of the sentence (unless  you are quoting the speech of a character in your writing of course)  
> **username_0**: You're right! Many Chinese people tell me that.  

---

